ELI5: what does this mean for the end user? Is there any simple test I can do with both to see this?

I didn’t downvote it, but I really didn’t like the video. It goes like “the things that are problems in Linux” and then starts talking about an extremely customized system, from DE to kernel, to audio…

I don’t think he gets, in general at least, to explain why those are needed, just how complex it all is. It would have been more interesting to say “this are the problems with an out of the box distro, and the hurdles it took me go fix each one”.

Mind you, this doesn’t mean I think a fresh install of Ubuntu can perfectly work for him. But knowing what didn’t work and why might be more helpful for people considering the same

There are a lot of S3 compatible backend that are not amazon

FastAPI, not a language, but a very good python library, if somebody wants to read the story

What on earth are you taking about?? I’m telling you that “no money = Linux” is a bad argument and you come back with a drug fueled conspiracy theory.

I’m not even giving an argument, I’m telling you you have no argument. You’re the one that should be explaining your theory.

Dude, chill a bit. Take some fresh air and stay away from sharp objects.

Same thing can be said of Pakistan and they don’t have a significantly high Linux usage.

India is not the most financially constrained country in the world by far. If the explanation was just that, we would see a very direct correlation with the rest of the countries that are similarly constrained.

Now, if instead of making rethoric questions you could maybe offer some arguments you would definitely be more helpful.

I don’t know. Your justification seems a bit weak. It’s not like piracy is not a thing there.

The independent YouTube would have done the same really.

It’s not like pirating Windows is hard or expensive.

want to see a world where content creators are simply paid by the hour, while they work.

Do you? Because that’s how game developers get their ideas crushed in favor of yet another game as a service that nobody asked for but makes stock holders happy.

And for alternative creators, who would pay? Do they need to be churning content as a job and not because they are inspired?

I get the idea, it’s just that seems hard to pull off

I use it for general stuff and even to work, no issues.

I use Bazzite for a mainly work, gaming sporadically machine and honestly, I don’t know what changes bluefin might have that I’m missing. Leaner maybe? Even for a gaming centric distro, the looks are very good.

Steps with Bazzite:

1. Restart the computer
2. Not needed, 1 did it.
3. Seriously, 1 was all it takes. If there’s an update, it installs on boot

What does strawberry different in such case?

Bluefin is basically fedora with a different name.

Yeah, I spoke with the guy a bit more, he’s a total nut job. I guess for an external party night be fun to read, was painful to try to explain. At least there’s testament to his madness, so if somebody feels the first comment seems reasonable, can read the rest to rethink that.

I’m not sure why you have such obsession with apples, but clearly it’s not the only unreasonable thing in your brain. After my first message I thought your answer would me something like “that’s a stupid example for the sake of argument, nobody would really think that”. In that, I was wrong, and a bit less hopeful for the sake of humanity.

I’ll just invite you to make your research about how apples will cure COVID, or any other illness. You seem to bet highly on it, and you think medical research can be done in the side, easy peasy. You clearly have easy too much time.

Please don’t forget to post the mandatory “haha! I won, my logic was unbeatable!”. Won’t be seeing that notification though.

This reinforces my point that medicine is not a science being conducted by scientific method. It is being conducted through authority, and using terminology of the church (like good faith / bad faith) to steer clear of logical criticism.

That making a proper medical study is something too hard for a single person to do on their spare time is not appealing to authority, it just shows how complex and rigorous a proper study has to be to be usable. A study with 100 subjects is considered small, now think how long it would take to interview them, take samples, analyze them, follow up… and all that to check a random fruit?

I know that for indian traditional medicine you can just say “it’s on an ancient book!” and “somebody who followed it lived to 100 years” but they don’t have to prove it.

Why single out known drugs, but exclude known foods?

I haven’t said you can’t, just that if you are going to go to the massive work that’s a proper study, you want a proper justification for it. Is there anything in apples that makes it seem useful? else, why apples? why not pears? peaches? oranges? For example, some drugs that were used in treatment of covid symptoms were identified by combining the results of thousands of patients and seeing that some that were using that drug to treat a different condition were doing better. Based on that the hypothesis that that drug was the reason was done and the experiment started, tested and validated. On the same manner a lot of drugs were shown to be useless, and even that is important information for those looking for a good one. Just like on real life, if you lose your keys at home, you make the hypothesis that they are in your coat and check that hypothesis. You don’t just say “I’m going to check on the fridge”. It’s not impossible, it’s just not the most likely scenario so it’s far from your first guess.

What you are suggesting here is reverse of what following scientific method would lead to: First check apples, and if a positive result is there, then go check for components.

No, not at all. First step is to make a hypothesis based on some observation. If you have made an observation that people that eat apples seem to fare better with an illness, then you can make he hypothesis that’s because of the apples and then define some measurable variable for validation the hypothesis. You don’t say at random ‘why not apples?’ and then mobilize a team. You don’t have a reason for it. If for instance, apples are rich in a component that is shown to be good, they might check giving apples for the experiment. Again, without reason, why apples and not kiwis?

Hypothesis in checking apples is trivial, and actually similar to one involved in testing any drug.

I haven’t said the opposite. Just that there doesn’t seem any reason to test for apples.

Sure you can, and you’d be as right as big pharma is in curing baldness. You’d be with less money though, and without that money, doctors who line up supporting big pharma are unlikely to line up for you.

I’m sure some quack Guru would be happy to use that to sell their services to fools like you. It’s really funny to see how much money fake medicines make and their defenders saying “big pharma bad because profit”.

Can’t say I enjoyed the conversation, but I’m done. You either lack the skills to understand or have too much bad faith to have an honest argument.

No, not missing the point. Your comment shows I’m right on point.

This kind of studies is not something a random person, or even a trained nurse, can do on their spare time. You couldn’t just give apples to some people and look a week later for results. You need control group, you need to account for extra factors.

And before the experiment you need to have a reason for it. Can a drug that works for other coronavirus work here? Some compound that has the opposite effects mitigate the symptoms?

Why would even check “apples”? They might consider a component that exists on apples, but why apple itself? Unless there’s an external event that correlates apples with a result, it’s a bit weird.

Natural sciences without scientific method are not science. If you don’t test and validate the hypothesis, you’re just making things up. Without it, I can say apples cure baldness and blame big pharma for not letting this being published.