Just boot the computer, choose which DE you want to install
Yeah, that’s not at all accessible to the average consumer; they don’t know what a “DE” even is, much less why they should choose any over any other.
Very, very few people want to deal with something other than a ‘just works’ situation.
I think it will continue to rise. People are updating their rigs all the time. Whenever they update their rig they’ll have to ask themselves whether they want to continue with Windows on their new rig, or try with something new.
The vast majority of this increase is from people playing on Steam Decks, which run on Linux, not from people switching to Linux on their PCs.
If it continues to rise, this is the reason. The general public is less and less into using a desktop at all as time goes on, much less running, and much less changing to, an extremely niche operating system on one.
EDIT: The previous sentence is actually more of the reason, upon further reflection. The total number of people playing on desktops period is falling, and the vast majority of desktops are Windows, so non-Windows OSes will comparatively gain ‘market share’ as that happens, even if their numbers don’t change at all.
It was a 4-person tournament, what kind of prize pool do you think that’s going to have? lol
It looks like she was playing in these events all throughout her pregancy, including a win at 7 months.
Credit where credit’s due, but it seems like great pains have been taken to hide the fact that this was a tournament of 4 players.
Looks like she also had a 1st place finish in this tournament, which had over triple the entrants (14), and she did it while 7 months pregnant—that’s much more impressive, imo.
The closest what?
My sources show the facts. There is consensus among people whose lives’ work is studying extremism and extremist movements. Your bloodlust does not change the reality.
So, you cite one link describing one white nationalist reducing (not even eliminating) ‘speaking dates’ in response to violence from antifa, in an article from 2018. You call this “the actual truth”.
Yet, five years later in 2023, the incidence of white nationalism soared to a record high. So what did antifa really accomplish with their violence, hm?
These violent tactics are not working. They’re demonstrably making negative progress toward the cause of eradicating this kind of extremism. THAT is the “actual truth”, regardless of what you want to be true.
All I want is for people to do what works, not what doesn’t. And part of that is correcting the common misconception about what effect physically assaulting extremists who have done nothing more than speak their extremism has.
Your anecdote does not contradict what all of the prevailing data shows. Most extremists would not (and have not, in history) respond(ed) to violence that way. What the research shows is that it is much more likely to make them double-down and become further radicalized.
The false dichotomy is between assaulting strangers saying bad things in the street, and doing nothing.
Pointing out that the former is counter-intuitive is absolutely not advocacy for the latter. You can oppose them, emphatically, and aggressively, without being literally violent.
Videos of them swinging first do the opposite for their cause, that’s why they instead try to bait people into attacking them while they’re just standing there.
hurr durr when you say unprovoked violence in response to words is a bad idea, that means you think actual physical aggression should be opposed with nothing more than words
No. This is an idiotic straw man. Shame on you.
It’s not even that unprovoked violence against extremists doing nothing more than speaking isn’t as effective as other methods, it’s that it literally helps them. You are making negative progress when you do that. Even the extremists themselves have made this obvious, as I cited. With social media as prevalent as it is today, how negative that progress is is only accelerating. For every video they see of one of ‘our guys’ getting socked in the face while they’re just standing there or speaking, their recruitment grows.
But I guess that little spurt of dopamine you got from taking the swing is just so much more important, huh?
Selfish foolishness.
You’re calling a well-documented and cited debunking of the naive assumption that unprovoked assault on strangers expressing harmful/extremist views is an effective tool against the spread of those views a “rant”, because you’re absolutely desperate to classify the threat to your narrative it as an irrational/emotional response, so you can then rationalize ignoring the inconvenient truth.
It’s literally what they want. If you do this, you are their ally. That’s the reality.
invade where they live and hold power
This is not a thing in 2025. There’s no singular stronghold where all the baddies are, such that you could eradicate them in one shot. Not to mention:
'Cause that seemed to be the only thing that’s worked so far.
Has it actually worked, though? Because here we are, talking about the same issue still existing today, nearly a century later.
Yeah, the communication in that case is that you’re letting the extremists know that your speech can’t beat theirs, so you resort to violence. In other words, you’re implying they’re right and you’re wrong.
It may feel cathartic and satisfy primal urges for retribution, but in the long run, ‘punching Nazis’ doesn’t hurt the neo-nazi ideology, it helps it. Feeds the persecution complex, turns the guy you beat up who didn’t physically attack you first into their martyr. Gives them more fuel to rally around and further radicalize them into wanting revenge.
Prioritizing a cheap, temporary thrill over real, lasting change for the better is ultimately self-serving, and not in service of your cause; ironically, it completely undermines it.
On a purely pragmatic/practical level, it’s a bad idea, if your goal is to oppose Nazism.
Experts on extremism/terrorism etc. are all saying the exact same thing.
See for yourself: (emphasis added)
In the case of violent counterprotest tactics — e.g., punching Nazis — experts on extremism say it is likely only to aid the white supremacists’ cause.
The most commonly stated argument in favor of physically disrupting white-supremacist rallies is that society can’t give an iota of legitimacy to these groups. To allow them to spread their message of hate is to offer them a platform to recruit and to glorify their cause. What this logic leaves out is that it may well be the case that hate groups are better able to recruit and glorify their cause when they are able to engage in violence, regardless of how that violence starts, according to researchers in the field of countering violent extremism, or CVE.
“On the one hand, I don’t think these expressions should go unanswered,” David Schanzer, director of the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security at Duke University, said of the recent white-supremacist gatherings. “But you’re essentially giving them exactly what they want when you try to confront them directly.” That’s because these groups’ efforts to recruit and mobilize supporters rely on a very specific strategy that benefits greatly from violent conflict.
In the U.S., explicitly white-supremacist groups know they are vastly, vastly outnumbered by everyone who hates them — their paltry numbers being an easy thing to forget in the age of social media and especially so this week, in the wake of a real-life white-supremacist murder. So their only hope for relevance is to maximize every potential bit of media coverage. And the best way to do this is to create media moments: scary, evocative images like the torch photos from last weekend, but also as many violently photogenic confrontations with counterprotesters as possible. Producing violence is an underlying, often unstated, goal of many white-supremacist protests and gatherings.
When violence does break out, videos of it race through the internet’s white-supremacist underbelly, serving as incredibly valuable PR material. It doesn’t matter who gets the better of a given confrontation: When the Nazis get punched, it’s “proof” that anti-fascists or liberals or [insert minority group] or whoever else did the punching have it in for “innocent white Americans just trying to protest peacefully.” When the Nazis punch back, it’s proof that their enemies are, to borrow a word from alt-right parlance, “cucks” who are easily bested in the streets. Even when white supremacists lose street fights, they win the long game.
This sort of tactic, said Jeffrey Kaplan, an academic researcher and the author of a number of books on terrorist movements, “is a constant in terrorism or any form of asymmetric warfare,” whether the group in question is jihadist or white supremacist or whatever else. Kaplan, who is an incoming professor at King Fahd Security College in Riyadh, summed up the extremists’ logic like this: “Our numbers are paltry, we are despised by our countrymen and we couldn’t get a date for the life of us, but any action that has enough impact to strike at the heart of the enemy by getting media coverage is a major triumph.” Violent confrontations allow extremists to make a tantalizing offer to the angry, disillusioned young men — they are almost entirely men — whom they hope to groom to become tomorrow’s haters and killers: We are part of a movement to change the world, as you can see from this latest video that movement is working, and you can be a part of it.
Schanzer laid out a fairly straightforward alternative: Counterdemonstrators should respond assertively, vociferously, and in far superior numbers — but at a distance from the extremists themselves. This tactic both prevents the sort of violent conflict American hate groups want, and has the added benefit of drawing at least some media and social-media attention away from the smaller hateful gathering and toward the much larger counterprotest.
“Violence directed at white nationalists only fuels their narrative of victimhood — of a hounded, soon-to-be-minority who can’t exercise their rights to free speech without getting pummeled.” “I would want to punch a Nazi in the nose, too,” Maria Stephan, a program director at the United States Institute of Peace, told him. “But there’s a difference between a therapeutic and strategic response.”
…when mouthpieces for white supremacist ideology are physically assaulted on camera, it becomes a powerful validation of their victimhood complex: in their minds, plain evidence that white people are indeed under attack, and motivation to spread a call to violent response with renewed zeal. This “punch felt round the world” was a great boost to the “alt-right” cause. If you aid and comfort neo-Nazis, which is exactly what punching them in the face does, you are no better than they are. Real life isn’t a fucking Quentin Tarantino movie.
When I was a neo-Nazi skinhead over 2 decades ago, I got beat up as often as I beat anyone else up. It never made me any less violent. In fact, we used to pile into vans and drive from Milwaukee to Chicago for the thrill of brawling fellow devotees of romantic violence like the guy throwing the punch in this video. We lived for violent opposition. We thrived on it. Violence of any sort, no matter how it may be rationalized, is the bread of hatred. We put mustard on that shit and gleefully gobbled it up and clamored for more.
Back in the 1930s, there were gangs of communists who routinely brawled the Nazi brownshirts in the streets of Germany. Their contemporaries would have us believe that if there were more communists who brawled harder than they did back then, that the Holocaust wouldn’t have happened. As a former neo-Nazi, I can attest to how important it is to have violent opposition in order to maintain the hatred necessary to hurt people. The communist gangs helped Hitler’s National Socialist party come to power not only by galvanizing their own members, but more importantly by serving as a crucial ingredient in the overall atmosphere of fear and loathing that led the German general public to look to the Nazi party for order.
I’ve got a worthless degree i deeply regret
Meanwhile, not far from this comment is someone claiming no one regrets getting their degree, lol.
were those numbers perhaps cherry-picked to make the situation look more dramatic than it actually is?
If anyone can go from 554th to 5th in any sport/event just by competing among the other sex, nothing else changing, then that obviously indicates something. You can’t handwave that away.
Her personal 100m freestyle time dropping less than a quarter of a second post-transition is honestly a bigger indicator that transition is not making a substantial difference, because that angle completely removes the ‘chance’ element in your opponents being different people.
The very fact that their ranking is lower than what it should be is an issue in and of itself, your disingenuous mockery notwithstanding.
The question is fair, but so very few people are affected, who cares?
The vast majority of people are never murdered, either. But I’m sure it matters to them and their loved ones.
It’s an extreme example for the analogy, but the point stands: it doesn’t follow that a bad thing being rare makes it less bad. This is not a valid argument against.
My understanding is that there is absolutely no evidence that trans women have an advantage.
Going from 554th place pre-transition to 5th place post-transition doesn’t line up with that claim.
The fact that the University of Pennsylvania swimmer [Lia Thomas] soared from a mid-500s ranking (554th in the 200 freestyle; all divisions) in men’s competition to one of the top-ranked swimmers in women’s competition tells the story
In the 100 freestyle, Thomas’ best time prior to her transition was 47.15. At the NCAA Championships, she posted a prelims time in the event of 47.37. That time reflects minimal mitigation of her male-puberty advantage.
During the last season Thomas competed as a member of the Penn men’s team, which was 2018-19, she ranked 554th in the 200 freestyle, 65th in the 500 freestyle and 32nd in the 1650 freestyle. As her career at Penn wrapped, she moved to fifth, first and eighth in those respective events on the women’s deck.
It may not be an issue to you, but it’s an issue to every woman whose ranking is lower as a result. I imagine it especially hurts if you’re pushed out of first place in that way.
The vast majority of the increase, is what I said. In other words, I’m saying it wouldn’t be nearly at the 3% mark without those users, and with over a quarter of all Linux users coming from the Steam Deck userbase, that is, in fact, true.