It’s a very slippery slope. Clearly land/business owners, race, gender, etc are not the way.

Political fluency? A test to see if you’ve been following current events and can answer basic questions? The positives would be a more informed pool of electorates, but it would also substantially diminish the amount of voters, exclude those that have grievances but don’t have time for politics, and the questions could be manipulated by the current government to exclude voters likely to vote for the opposition.

I also don’t know what the answer is. I’m leaving towards this being a symptom of dysfunction rather than something that needs an easy workaround. If we can actually tackle poverty and bring education up people will be much more likely to vote rationally, but I don’t know how we get there WITH thr current system we have.

I agree with you, there are many things about Linux that technically work, but are rough around the edges. I know said you’re not looking for solutions, but I could offer some generic advice, have you tried using KDE as your desktop?

GNOME (which is what Ubuntu ships with by default) is not the best for easy user customization. It can be done, but as you said expects things done a certain way. I like KDE because it’s more similar to Windows in that it gives you a bit more customization out of the box.

Fedora KDE Spin is my recommendation, but if you want to stick with Ububtu then Kbuntu is also popular.

I don’t think it’s anything against you, just that you gave a personal opinion and so people are voting if they agree or not with your take.

For example, I think you’re right that millenial fashion had more form fitting clothing. I also think you’re wrong that high waist pants look good. No offense intended.

I feel I should clarify that I don’t hold this position because dogs are dangerous or think it should be harder to have a dog. I hold it because I think our breeding programs are creating a lot of animal suffering.

From puppy mills where dogs are kept in horrible conditions, to overproduction of animals so that there aren’t enough homes, to propagating breeds that can barely breath so that they have an “adorable” face. Dog breeding is exploitative and re-enforces that dogs are simply a commodity.

I’m not sure a law making it more difficult to own a dog would have the effect you intend, as there are already too many dogs in need of homes. I think a more palatable middle ground to elimination would be regulation of breeders to ensure that they are not producing more dogs than can be homed.

Not the OP, but let me step in. Dog breeds are something we have created as humans, they’re not wild species that need to be preserved and don’t have any effect on ecosystems.

Dog breeding is largely negative at this point as most breeds have outlived their original use and are now seen as designer pets. We continue to breed them as there is continued demand, but quite often these breeds are so inbred that they have genetic health issues. We also oversupply and don’t fix/neuter enough, meaning there are always unwanted dogs without homes.

I love dogs, but all of mine have been rescues and I would have no problem with the vast majority of breeds being phased out. There are still some niche cases where dogs are actually used for their breed’s purpose (dog sled, search/rescue, hunting, etc) but no, I don’t think a chihuahua or a pug should exist and would not be sad if breeders stopped producing more.

I think Putin is out of touch and lives with a completely different world view than you or I, but I don’t think he is insane or suicidal. Look at how far away he stayed from people during COVID.

I think we do ourselves a disservice by bowing down to his sabre rattling every time he reminds us he has nukes. We know, and he also knows the second one will drop on his head if he tries it. It’s just posturing to get people likrnus arguing and making his land grab seem more legitimate, like there’s nothing we can really do.

He will always have nukes, and if we alwuas back down because not them he will always get his way.

Because the winds are blowing in his favour. Xi (and the rest of the world) have watched Russia take land with little repercussion. The reaction to the invasion of Crimea was mild and allowed for the full on invasion years later. The rules have changed and now leaders are seeing that taking land, which used to be seen as a relic of the past, is back on the menu.

The US and a lot of the west is afraid to get involved and do what needs to be done to stop Putin, and Xi knows that if he waits for the perfect moment Taiwan will be his.

The US is building domestic chip manufacturing in case they lose TSMC, and once it’s operational one of the main reasons they consider Taiwan an asset will be gone. Xi likely is hoping the war in Ukraine and Israel will continue and “news fatigue” will render people uninterested in a new conflict. I’m not sure what the final nail will be that makes him move, but a controllable president like Trump getting in is a good bet.

More like people tried to boycott Israel and the US (land of the free) made it illegal.

What exactly are you trying to say? Why do you think this isn’t news?

How would you change his setup to prevent ARP attacks? More network segmentation (clients and servers on separate VLANs) or does OPNsense additional protections I should look into?