My personal definition of "the year of the Linux desktop" is when we hit a market share % that starts to convince companies to take Linux support seriously. I don't think we're that far off from that happening and if Microsoft keeps adding in these terrible "features" to windows, more people will move over. Is 2024 the year for that? Probably not but I wouldn't be surprised if it happens before 2030.

I remember something about Ontario basically saying that they are waiting on New York to stop switching back and forth. They would just stick with DST.

The author mentioned in this article was recently on The Grey Area podcast and the arguments and reasoning is pretty compelling. It's also about the discussion and civic involvement and not a particular limit. But the reasoning behind a Limitarianism makes a lot of sense.

If person A makes 100million a year, that's 1,000 times more than person B making 100k a year. Can you honestly say that person A is working 1k time harder, or is contributing 1k times more than the person B? Also remember that we're not talking about the hordes of people working below person A who execute most of the work. We're just talking about that one individual and their contributions.

Either way, the discussion about the subject is the important thing here. What do you want your society to look like in the future and for the next generation? Even if it's not Limitarianism, starting the conversation and cival discourse to push society towards a better version of its current form is worth the effort.

Take a listen to the recent Grey Area podcast episode with Ingrid Robeyns. Her book is "Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth." and they talk about this very subject.

I don't know this particular project but honestly having your government documents and policies made available on Codeberg/GitLab/Github and available for PRs is actually an interesting idea. The government would still need to be the owners and ultimately decide on what gets merged, but the transparency and opportunity for accessible civic engagement would be kinda sweet.

Taxes contribute to providing services and infrastructure to the people. This takes money from the people and deposits it into the bank accounts of the wealthy. I see two very different things.

While I agree with you that some software isn't capable of running on Linux (even through wine), there is another aspect that's important to remember. Want and choice. The software that doesnt run on Linux is developed only for Windows because of market share. If more people used Linux, and more importantly, demanded Linux support, more software would support it. I WANT to use Linux instead of windows, so in order for that to become a reality, I push companies to support it and I talk to people and encourage trying Linux out. Can everyone make the switch? No, but some can; and the more that do the more Linux will be supported.

Your voice and opinion and choice matters. Don't let a big corporation steal that from you. Even if you want to use Windows, you should still have the choice.

My wife and I had to beg, borrow, and move 2 hours outside Toronto to afford our first home. Yes we own our home and yes we are better off compared to 5 years prior, but we are FAR from being wealthy. Even if we look at the average home owners who don't have a mortgage, most of those people again are better off but not wealthy. I feel like this article is trying to shift the blame away from the top 0.1% and put it on the slightly better off but still struggling population.

Check out protondb.com/ to see how compatible a game is with the deck (and Linux in general). The comments will usually have suggestions for getting the game to run well.

Eventually the chromium base will be too hard to patch if Google has their way. Surfing on ungoogled chrome is keeping the user agent the same as chrome. This shows devs and companies that chrome dominates and therefore they should only code sites to support it. Only true way to protest these changes is to switch to a different browser. Firefox and its forks are the only privacy focused options.

This is your friendly reminder to not use Amazon. Give up a small convenience so that you can vote with your wallet.

Brave's objective is to create a system that looks altruistic but they control it and take a ever increasing cut. Google started off the same way. I like the idea, but it's one that needs to be controlled by a not for profit or by the people. Giving that control to a for profit company is just repeating history.

Firefox isn't perfect, but my argument for choosing them or a fork of FF is to combat the market share of chromium based browsers. With google pushing for Web Environment Integrity (aka web DRM) using a different browser is one of the few good ways to protest.

I would also like to point out that popular open source projects often get contributions (both code and financial) from large corporations. Sometimes it's their main source of revenue. This isn't just a Mozilla problem. I wouldn't even say it is a problem. A problem would be if those contributions affect the project in a negative way.

Just like in most things these days our choices are limited to the shitty and the less shitty. Obviously where Brave and Firefox lands on that shitty spectrum will depend on your priorities, but for me at least Firefox is less shitty and far from perfect, but decent.

Edit: grammer