drewofdoom

Shouldn’t be, though. Humans deserve rest.

TBH, it sounds like you should go with a distro that makes no assumptions. Like an Arch/Endeavor. It definitely sounds like you’re current distro doesn’t meet your needs/ideals if you’re this angry about a default change.

Let’s be fair to the distro maintainers, though. They have the option to either keep shipping and developing against abandoned code, or they move with upstream. Since no one is developing X11 anymore, they’re all moving to the new stuff. Most of them changed defaults years ago, too. Hard to develop new features when X is so long in the tooth.

The writing has been on the wall about the death of X11 for a long time, now. No one stepped up to fork it or take over maintenance. So it goes. But this is Linux, so you’re free to run it forever. Or even fork and maintain it yourself.

FWIW, Wayland+Nvidia was fine for me. Promising, even, considering how new it is. There are bugs to squash, sure, but there always are in new software.

Ummm… Sure… Progress takes time, and it won’t speed up at all if everyone says “it’s not ready,” and edge cases never get tested. I mean, the project is sixsteen years old now. It’s been more than just " pretty good" for years at this point.

And I doubt that your distro is going to drop X11 session support anytime soon. So if you reinstall, you may need to do one more step to make that the default. Big whoop.

But the real meat here is that you had a bad experience something like a year ago, and it seems like you’ve developed true hatred over it. Would it help to know that Nvidia and Wayland play nicely now? They have for quite some time.

FWIW, I had very little trouble with xwayland even years ago. It didn’t really require any setup for me. It just kinda worked. Sure, there will always be SOME weirdness, but overall it’s been working really well for years.

Anyways, I’m sure you can still toggle over to your X session for years to come. At least until your DE decides it wants to go wayland only.

And here’s the other argument we hear all the time. “This bill doesn’t fix everything, so it’s pointless and should be dropped.”

Drinking in a car is illegal, but how would an officer be able to tell if there are passengers drinking behind tinted windows? If the driver has booze in his or her or their yeti, how would a cop know? Since the cop can’t know, drinking in cars should be legal, even for the driver.

That’s basically what you’re arguing.

Sometimes a bill is stripped down in order to pass with conservatives or moderates. Sometimes a bill is a trial balloon for what you really want to pass. Sometimes a bill addresses a specific issue, and that it doesn’t fix some other issue is just moot.

And sometimes you have to walk before you run.

Nobody is going to make you vote one way or another, but please recognize the following:

The United States is currently a two party system. It sucks. We need to push for more ranked choice voting, as well as direct popular vote.

However, until we’re able to achieve something that makes this parties viable, we will continue to have issues with the right wing getting undue influence in our politics.

Vote with your heart, but make sure that you’re okay with another Trump presidency of you decide not to vote for Biden.

Keep in mind as you do so that more than one state had enough votes for Jill Stein that if they had gone to Hillary, Trump never would have become president.

We should have viable parties outside of the two not great to horrible parties we have now. But that’s simply not the way our government works as it stands now.

Last thing: you’ve become a single issue voter. This is the lefty equivalent of only caring about abortion and ignoring literally everything else. Politics is complicated, and I personally find single issue voters incredibly shortsighted and lazy.

LOL, “I’m willing to listen to reasoning, but only if you format it in a way that I’m willing to read.”

For real, though, fewer guns means fewer gun crimes. The whole ‘then only outlaws will have guns’ is really a myth. Statistics have shown over and over again that the vast majority of criminals who purchase guns do so legally. If they can’t purchase one locally, they just go a state over where the laws are lax. The whole ‘black market’ gun stores thing is just a false argument.

The idea that a ‘good guy with a gun’ will make everyone safer is also pretty well debunked. Just look at John Hurley - the ‘good guy with a gun’ who was posthumously branded a hero after he was shot by the police.

Guns are inherently unsafe. We’re never getting rid of them in military applications, but any reasonable restrictions for private ownership should be a no-brainer.

All the arguments for ‘private gun ownership makes us safer’ fall apart under any scrutiny. So does the constitutional argument. The only real, provable argument you have is that your personal freedom to own a killing machine is more important to you than public safety.

There are a lot of reasons to not judge it yet. First and foremost, the director/show runner has zero input on the trailer. That’s all the marketing department, and the trailer is designed to get as many eyeballs as possible on the final product. Numerous examples exist of trailers which bared little resemblance to the movie/show/game/whatever.

Secondly, they buried the lead on the director. Jonathan Nolan did direct much of Westworld. But he also wrote a bunch of award winning films for his brother, Christopher Nolan. Movies like Memento, Interstellar, The Prestige, and Dark Knight. He’s no slouch, and I’ll reserve judgement until I see it.

There are serious concerns regarding potential genocide, and Netanyahu has always been a problematic, right-wing leader that flirts with authoritarianism. I would agree with you on that front, and it’s perfectly fine to draw parallels to other authoritarian regimes.

However, it shouldn’t take much to realize to that accusing a Jewish nation of being actual Nazis is not only insensitive, it’s antisemitic.

We can criticize Israel for very real issues. There is absolutely no reason to invent new ones.

Is it brainwashing and indifference, though? Could also be fear of a hostile government. Russia isn’t exactly known for its fair treatment of protesters, dissidents, and activists.

I think this is a cultural difference. In the US it’s not uncommon for common sense health regulation to get ignored - such as the amount of sugar in soda - because people cause an uproar about freedoms being taken away.

But if you say it’s about the health of sweet, innocent children… well then suddenly it’s a lot more palatable for the public.

So here in the US, you can want everyone to stop smoking, but make the case that it is for the benefit of children in order to help achieve that goal.