Of course it does. OP asked multiple questions, this was sipposes to answer why they used KDE instead of Gnome. I personally think Arch would have the advantage of having the newewst drivers, Proton version etc. available.

The US government doesn’t want an adversary government to have the data of its citizens (because of varios reasons, including mass manipulation for example). They would of course have no issue with having that data themselves though (also because then they would be more in control over how the data is handled).

But not for a foreign government (from their perspective).

It says you only have ten seconds, I doubt you could log onto another (Unix) computer in that time, open the terninal, run the man oage and then run over and enter a valid command…

Generation Z rarely uses computers and knows nothing about them, compared to other generations

I disagree. In Gen Z, there are those that use computers regularly and those that don’t. There is a larger gap between clueless and tech-savvy. But the one’s that do use a computer are genrally more tech-savvy than other generations, while the majority of other generations’ computer users are just getting by with minimal knowledge (how files are organized, some specific software like office and not much more).

Start asking people about PC components or programming (don’t count those that learned it university or at their jobs) and you will quickly realize that your best bet is gen Z.

Yeah but do you think people just drop windows and don’t move to any OS afterwards?

11-20 = -9 10-19 = -9 -9 = -9

Fixed that for you.

A 3rd party votes subtracts one vote from Biden’s total vote count, so to say. Here is the 1M$ math equation you desire (assuming you would usually vote for Biden):

Definitions:

(I) VoteDifference = VotesTrump - VotesBiden

(II) VotesBiden1 = EveryoneElsesVotes + YourVote (Scenario where you vote for Biden)

(III) VotesBiden2 = EveryoneElsesVotes (Scenario where you vote for a 3rd party)

Calculations:

(II) VotesBiden1 = EveryoneElsesVotes + Yourvote =〉VotesBiden1 - YourVote = EveryoneElsesVotes (III) VotesBiden2 = EveryoneElsesVotes =〉VotesBiden1 - YourVote = VotesBiden2

(I) VoteDifference = VotesTrump - VotesBiden

VoteDifference1 = VotesTrump - VotesBiden1 VoteDifference2 = VotesTrump - VotesBiden2

=〉VoteDifference2 = VotesTrump - (VotesBiden1 - Yourvote) =〉VoteDifference2 = VotesTrump + YourVote - VotesBiden1 (!!!)

THUS WE CONCLUDE:

In scenario 2 (which is the one in which you vote for a 3rd party), the vote difference (which determines who won and by how much), is EQUIVALENT to one additional person voting for Trump. You’re welcome. I don’t even need the 1.000.000$.

CVE score of heartbleed was 7.5, the score of this XZ backdoor is 10…

Yeah but the backdoor does not work on Arch (as far as we currently know). It relies on a linking of libraries that Arch doesnt do by default.

I do think it shoukd be left up to (potentially big) companies; however, we should put restrictions on e.g. ink cartrige compatibility, just like what the EU is trying for smartphones and messagin right now.

Seems that immortality thing is working though. At least since the first time he was caught un 1866.

It cost me an arm and a leg. (No, it wasn’t my arm, obviously…)

It may be essential, but not sufficient. That’s all this statement claims.

I guess that depends on the metric you use. You say they should be punished by time (and so people who earn money more quickly should have to pay more). However, I see many problems with that and I think it would result in much less fair fines than now.

Picture two persons, one living in the countryside, one in a big city. The second person earns considerably more than the first because life in the city is just more expensive. Both persons have the same amount of money left at the end of the month (after paying the bells etc) but income-adjusted fines would mean person B would have to pay way more.

If it’s posession-bases instead (i.e. your fines depend on what you have/own) then what about some person who inherited a large house that is worth lots of money and has an otherwise normal job. This person may also have the same amount of money left at the end of the month as the other two persons but because of his big house, he’d have to pay even more, potentially sell his house because of a small offense.

1. Lets focus on non-necessity acts here (e. g. traffic violations).

2. Deterring people is not the only goal, it also needs to be fair/appropriate. And this is where, IMO, the income-adjusted fines fail.

Fines should be adjusted depending on the offense commited, possibly also taking into account the intentions. Personal wealth is not a factor that seems reasonable to me to take into account regarding the fairness.

Essentially, I believe that everybody should be treated equally before the law. Nobody should be treated better or worse (or have a better or worse punishment) just because of their social status. That’s why I believe that fixed fines are fair and the suggested varying punishments are not. I do recognize that they may deter wealthier people less.

Okay but then what about those poor people mentioned above that need to steal for necessities. Wouldn’t we want to deter them the most (as they are the most likely to commit the act)?

It doesnt seem logical to me to say that we should increase the fines to deter (wealthy) people more and at the same time say that we should lower the fines so (poor) people that are currently deterred can afford to break the law (?)…

You have a point but what about stuff like traffic violations? Nobody NEEDS to commit one, so should these fines be the same for everyone?

Also, following your example, person A making 75k/year and person B making 150k/year both have no necessitiy to steal groceries. Yet, if the fine was income-dependent, person B would have to pay way more.

Also, this would mean people with no money or income could do what they want without any consequences.

Im also failing to understand why successful people should supposedly be charged more. It doesnt make a difference if the person who committed the crime has more or less money, so they should be charged according to the crime, not what they have.