But aren’t seedboxes more expensive? Why prefer them?

deleted by creator

Tbh I don’t know what gamescope is, but I’ll look into that and try it out to see. Thanks!

I thought about trying it out, didn’t get to it yet. I will now. Thanks!

It’s Gentoo. That could be possible, maybe something to do with the open vs non-open variant. I will look into it.

I wouldn’t call sway a custom WM, it uses wlroots which has become a standard.

Though I agree that wlroots seem to vary significantly in results with gnome and KDE based Wayland.

When working with git, and I have a separate working copy, my options to sync are either rebase or create a merge commit.

It sounds to me like the pijul workflow is almost equivalent to just doing a merge commit instead of rebasing. Am I correct here? What’s the difference then?

It’s hard to understand what exactly will change for me if I used pijul vs git. What will be noticeably different?

This is mostly due to inertia and, to an extent, SEO.

Most people use github because it’s all they know and its name is almost synonymous with git hosting. Publishing elsewhere leads to people asking you why you’re not on github, how else can we contribute, etc. Moreover, github seems to score better on Google SEO than other platforms.

Which Proton version are you using? try using Proton Experimental or trying out other versions to see what works.

The argument isn’t to say its better or good. Rather, it is arguing that all likely alternatives to said politician would show the same homophobia policy. So given a frame of reference of politicians of that time, their LGBT policy doesn’t make them worse than realistic alternatives.

Thank you Luigi for freeing me from the chains of capitalism

Oh wait, his CEO killing changed nothing. Okay back to work I guess.

deleted by creator

Do new torrents bypass this somehow, or is it just by sheer volume and popularity ?

Better than 0 nodes, and this is not counting that they already attacked 3.

You’d be surprised how terrible politician priorities are

Upon rereading, it looks like I misunderstood it due to conflating it with some other comments, so you’re right. I apologize for the misunderstanding, and will edit my comment accordingly.

With due respect, that’s quite different than the claim you explained in the comment I replied to, so I hope you will edit it to clarify that. edit: I seem to have misunderstood the original comment.

As to the point you stated in quotes in this comment (edit: which is what OP originally intended), I don’t see how they’re related. Criticizing China’s crackdown on dissent must not mean you should deny their credit on executing CEOs.

Thank you for your comment. From my skimming of the articles you sent, they seem to argue that the state has a track record of cracking down on dissent and protests.

I’m not sure this proves your initial claim though (that CEO executions were done to combat government criticism), unless there’s a detail in these articles that I missed by skimming too fast. Please let me know if I missed it.

While your claim is plausible, it is also equally plausible that they are acting within the defines of their state ideology, and we would need more evidence to prove it is one or the other.

Disclaimer: I only skimmed the articles and did not attempt to verify the evidence they present, as it didn’t seem that they are addressing your initial claims.

So it’s planned economy that you’re disputing

No.

My question is very clear, why can’t you address it without pretending I asked something else?

Again, you made the claim that CEO executions were made for the reason of seeking more control. Please provide proof that they were done for this reason and not any other reason. I have not asked for planned economy proof or anything else.

If your next comment does not answer my question, then you are being intentionally misleading