Does your distro use pipewire by any chance? That would explain the lack of issues.

Ah, yes, the notorious unfuck-audio.sh script. It’s like a rite of passage for linux users.

Huh, TIL

~ $ /bin/true --help
Usage: /bin/true [ignored command line arguments]
  or:  /bin/true OPTION
Exit with a status code indicating success.

      --help        display this help and exit
      --version     output version information and exit

NOTE: your shell may have its own version of true, which usually supersedes
the version described here.  Please refer to your shell's documentation
for details about the options it supports.

GNU coreutils online help: <https://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/>
Full documentation <https://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/true>
or available locally via: info '(coreutils) true invocation'

I honestly don’t know what I prefer more, the overengineered GNU true, or the true that shipped with some older system that was literally just an empty file with the executable bit set.

Strange. I use windows 11 occasionally, and it’s never even as much as mentioned onedrive to me. Could it be that it’s a cracked install? Or that I never connected the local account to a microsoft account? Or that I’m in the EU?

Edit: Downvote? Really? Are you really that jealous that my windows experience is slightly less painful than yours!?

You’re misrepresenting my argument. We both agree that dogs are not people and people are not dogs, and that having a specific opinion about dog breeds is different from having a specific opinion about race.

What I’m saying is that, even if you set aside questions of data reliability, there are dozens if not hundreds of ways to interpret the graph that everyone in this thread keeps posting. What if all dog breeds are equally aggressive, but only some are physically capable of killing a human? What if dog breeds that look more aggressive attract irresponsible owners that train them to be more aggressive and intentionally put them into dangerous situations around other humans? Of all the possible conclusions, that guy jumps to some breeds are just inherently more dangerous than others. This is the same logical leap that a racist follows when confronted with statistics about crime rate vs race.

And it’s not just that. Notice their language. Their comment is phrased like a question rather than a statement, a pattern that not-so-pleasant people are notorious for (look up “JAQing off”). The EDIT uses classic catchphrases like “Use your brain, not your feeeelings!”. This fits the verbiage of a modern internet racist to a tee.

Look, what I said about the alt twitter account was an exaggeration. Maybe the guy is genuinely not racist. But even if they are, why should I bother differentiating between a racist and someone whose arguments, language, and misuse of logic is functionally indistinguishable from those of a racist? The moment racism starts to enter the mainstream (due to a right-wing government or similar), I expect people like that to put up no resistance.

Are the tankies in the room with use right now?

So. Many. Downvotes. But not a single comment refuting the statistics with facts and evidence…

Yes, because it’s clear as day that you’re a closeted racist. The argument that you’re trying to push, the dishonest appeal to statistics, even the language that you use – you’re trying to normalise the idea that some “breeds” are more dangerous than others, but you’re too scared to say that even though you’re talking about dogs, what you actually have in mind are humans. Go on, don’t be shy, show us your twitter alt where instead of fatal attack statistic you post crime rate graphs and pretend that it’s evidence that black people don’t serve rights.

Protip: when arguing online, a very good strategy for wasting other peoples’ time and generally being an insufferable prick is to always pick a slightly unconventional definition of the topic that you’re arguing about. It works even better if you shift your definition subtly throughout the course of the argument. That way, each individual statement you make is technically not false, while your overall “argument” is an inconsistent ill-defined undisprovable mess that’s impossible to argue against.

Thanks! That explains it! Here’s the image you linked for people who don’t want to visit MSN

I really dislike it when people slather AI upscalers onto images for no reason. Very rarely does it improve the perceived quality of the image, most of the time it just changes your reaction from “wow, this is a low-res photo” to “wow, someone tried upscaling this low-res photo”. Here it somehow made the image even worse

Yeah, what’s up with that? At first I thought it was a weird camera/filter, but the more I look the worse it gets. What are those… powerlines? in the background on the right? Why are they next to a building/tree hybrid? What is the flamingo looking thing behind him? What logo is on his cap? Am I paranoid!?

Interesting how these types of people seem to have a set of phrases with their own fixed meanings that don’t necessarily correspond to the literal meanings of the words that make them up. “Can’t trust the government” in this context really means “can’t trust liberals/progressives”. You can see that in her response if you watch the video. She’s not stumped when the reporter points out the apparent contradiction. She expect everyone to make the same mental substitution, under which there is no contradiction.

Another good example is a 5 minute youtube video about homelessness from a fake university with an orange logo. They cite an example of a bridge between Los Angeles and Culver City that has a major homeless encampment on one side, but not the other, due to different laws in the two cities. To quote directly:

the Los Angeles side is full of tents and the Culver City side is empty. Why? Because the two cities have different public policies. Los Angeles has effectively decriminalized public camping and drug consumption while Culver City enforces the law.

If Los Angeles has no law against homelessness, then what law is it supposedly failing to enforce? This seems like a contradiction, until you realize that “Culver City enforces the law” has nothing to do with actual laws, but with the “law” of the moral framework that the authors are trying to propagandize.

idk what to call this genre of meme, but I’ve been seeing it a lot recently and I like it