The FCC Fairness Doctrine has not been a thing since 1987. If they want it back, they should go through the proper channels. This "legislation" based on Trump's whims is pure theater designed to flood the zone with endless distraction.
Yeah this clown and like half the Dem establishment needs to go. Maybe more than half. I'm not one for the "both parties are the same" bullshit, but between the enablements and the not listening to constituents, it is clear that many of these people are incapable of performing the duties for which they were elected.
Totally. Linux is (in part) about choice. If you like Mint, use Mint.
I've been a Linux user for 5+ years and played with a bunch of different distros. I have Arch (btw) on a laptop that I don't have to depend on. But my gaming rig is still running Pop. Why? Because I like it and it's stable. A bonus that it's now bundled with Cosmic, because I like Cosmic too.
But at the end of the day, it's true that you can kind of do anything with any distro. The package manager is one obvious difference. I do like Pacman (from Arch) more than apt on Debian derivatives, but like, it's just a package manager. Not worth changing a comfortable system over.
Don't listen to people who say you can't run a "beginner distro" until the end of time. If you like it, you like it.
I strongly dislike how the zone is getting flooded with "now it's not X, but Y" in terms of distro recommendations.
Not knowing what a distro is and where to start is one of the main issues with people who may want to switch to Linux but don't know how to do it. If Mint getting called out as a good place to start allows them to switch, then they should install Mint. If Ubuntu is all they have heard of, and it makes them try the switch, then they should install Ubuntu. Tbh, the only really dangerous approach is starting with something like Arch which, despite fantastic documentation, is probably more likely to turn new users away.
Don't let perfection be the enemy of progress. Someone who starts from either Mint or Ubuntu or whatever can distro hop later. Let's not muddy the waters even more for our would-be Windows refugees.
I’m wondering if there is a lot of benefit to going more barebones
Not really. On the scale at which homelabs operate, I doubt you'll see any difference at all -- except what might be the significant time sink to set everything up again.
I’m not having any issues with my current setup
I'd put this firmly in the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" category. Mint is already a distro which is ultimately a Debian derivative. It operates more like Debian as opposed to, say, Fedora or Arch. While it can be enticing to explore the many options of Linux, the benefit isn't clear here.
Now, distro hopping on a nonproduction system? Something where you don't care what's on it and you just want to experiment? That's one of the best parts of being a Linux user. But at least do that first before even approaching breaking something that isn't broken.
It sounds more like you want to have fun distro hopping, and believe me: I can tell you from experience that distro hopping isn't fun if you have to rely on that machine.
Ffs. He's a rich dude supporting other rich dudes. He doesn't give a fuck about you or me and his statements about affordability are obviously and demonstrably out of touch.
There was a time when hating the rich was something that brought people together.
Really need to start calculating settlements like this as a function of profits. Otherwise this is just factored in as a business cost and does not actually apply as a consequence.
$135 million may seem like a lot to regular people, but it's not for Google. If we are letting these tacit monopolies stay in place, then the kid gloves at least need to come off when they're being dealt with. Scale up consequences so they are appropriate for the size of the corporation.
To me, it can be hard to pin down what makes a movie "great" because the criteria change from genre to genre, and much of it is more of a subjective whole than an amalgamation of objective parts.
But, there is one metric my family uses to decide, unequivocally, if a movie was "bad" or not: if you watched it and it doesn't lead to conversation, it was a bad movie. That means it didn't spark any curiosity or need for discussion or even stand out in any way. Minimally, it wasn't worth thinking about once it was over. I don't mean short comments like "this effect was neat" or "I liked the part where...", but substantive discussion of 5+ minutes.
By extension, movies that lead to discussions must be good, simply because there was "something about it" that spurred discussion. The specifics of that x-factor don't really matter by this metric.
One thing I find interesting about this approach is that movies that many agree are objectively bad can lead to discussion if they are also unique or even just uniquely bad. And this approach says such movies are actually good, and I do agree with that.
The ones that end up consistently bad are big franchise films that are always same-samey, or other low-effort films that are mostly derivative.
Exactly, makes no sense to me