Are you suggesting users with no programming experience can simply add the flags they need to a terminal application but would be unable to do the same with a GUI because the GUI is the barrier?

Yeah, why not? I’ll go ahead and make that suggestion.

I mean, the terminal allows them to ctrl-c, ctrl-v a simple solution developed by someone else, even if that someone else didn’t bother to build out a GUI for applying their changes.

The convoluted steps they would have to take to achieve the same effect with a GUI would seriously hinder the GUI-only user.

What I am really saying, though, is that the problem of “needing to use the terminal” is not actually solved by ensuring that every possible setting can be accessed and manipulated with a mouse.

I’m saying that the best way to solve this “problem” is by pushing the user to expect and even demand the terminal. Distros should autolaunch a terminal window at startup. Put it right out there, front and center. Invite the novice user to interact with it with friendly little toys like fortune, cowsay, sl, toilet, espeak. The insane usefulness of the various shell tools are more than enough to keep them using it.

BlueShell

Generally speaking, anyone can correlate the two.

I mean, when a piefed user and a piefed shadow account participate and vote in the same thread, it doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to conclude they might be the same person. Look through a handful of the user’s comment threads, look for piefed users voting in the preceding comments for confirmation.

Unless the user only votes in threads they do not participate in, and only participates in threads they do not vote in, correlating the two accounts is trivial.

Smaller charities tend to do much better in my experience.

UBI is not charity. UBI is what the nation owes you as a shareholder of USA, Inc.

Giving people money doesn’t teach long term skills that lead to success.

Exactly. Which is why the children of rich people so often become homeless. All that money they had when they were kids kept them from learning long-term skills that lead to success. It stunted their financial growth, rendering them particularly susceptible to poverty.

The children of the impoverished, on the other hand, were forced to learn money management skills for their very survival. The superior money management skills of impoverished kids practically guarantee their future success.

This explains why self-made millionaires are so common, and generational wealth is so difficult to maintain.

Right? That’s how it works in your head, right? The people with easy access to money never learn how to manage it and ultimately squander it, right? The people who have to fight for every dime are the most successful, right?

Right?

I also think it would be better to have private organizations that have less bureaucracy.

Agreed. And an organization doesn’t get smaller or privater than a single individual. We can cut out 100% of the bullshit bureaucracy and give it straight to the individual, directly, or their caregiver if they are not qualified to maintain their own affairs. Remove everyone else, as they don’t add shareholder value.

Indeed.

Each of the issues you described is mitigated - if not cured - by steady income. And each is greatly exacerbated by a lack of such income.

What is really important is that the family and friends of the people struggling with these conditions aren’t also impoverished. The outcomes of each these conditions are vastly improved when the sufferer’s caregivers have the time and resources to attend to them.

UBI benefits everyone involved.

For the cases where the individual is not capable of managing their own money, it is still better for their caregiver to receive and manage their money on their behalf than to periodically send them crates of cauliflower and tomatoes.

With open source, the delineation between “user” and “programmer” is arbitrary and capricious. The GUI-centric Windows approach reinforces that artificial distinction; the terminal breaches that barrier.

Setting search is a solved problem, you simply search for the setting name in the UI,

This assumes the developer bothered to make that setting available through the UI.

With the terminal, that isn’t a problem: You’re using the same UI as the developer.

An effective terminal is a feature, not a bug. Every Linux problem has the same solution: search the web, ctrl-c, ctrl-v.

No navigating through “settings” and “preferences” and “tools” menus to figure out where this particular developer decided to hide that particular setting. Just copy and paste, problem solved.

Turns out that money is one of those things that the less you have of it, the harder it is to manage.

She’s 22.

They mix the mind control chemicals straight into the jet fuel. The pilots don’t even know they are complicit in making chemtrails.

/s

[baleeted]

If she is still financially reliant on her parents, you should abide by her wishes on the subject. You should not consider it a reflection of her relationship with you. She is doing what she needs to do to survive and thrive.

Eventually, she might choose to rely on you for financial support. But, you could be killed in a traffic accident, and she would still be dependent on their support. Even after you are supporting her financially, she still needs to do what she needs to maintain her relationship with them.

You should not consider her relationship with her parents to be a reflection on your relationship until she is capable of supporting herself, independent of both you and them.

Until then, she is being coerced, to some degree or another, and you should consider that coercion when evaluating her behavior.

Way I see it, if I’m over 1:1, I’m owed more than I owe. You’re welcome, and/or, where can I pick up my check?

In this job marlet, if you’re not lying, you’re not trying.

I would expect more mishaps from a regional turboprop, flying ten 45-minute flights a day, than a widebody flying a single 12+ hour flight a day.

Mishaps are most prevalent on takeoff and landing. The aircraft that make the most takeoffs and landings are going to have the highest mishap rate.

The risk of a mishap is greatest on takeoff and landing. Inflight mishaps are extremely rare.

A “flight” is one takeoff and one landing. The largest aircraft have the longest duration flights. They might be airborne 12+ hours at a time. They might fly fewer than 10 flights a week.

Small commercial aircraft flying local and regional routes might be shorter than an hour. These aircraft might have 70 flights a week.

A student pilot in the smallest, single-engine GA aircraft might spend all day shooting touch-and-goes to build time and experience. Each touch-and-go is a landing-and-takeoff. These aircraft might have 300 “flights” a week.

Yes, the smallest aircraft are going to have the highest per-airframe mishap rate, simply because they experience the most risky phases of flights much more frequently than large aircraft.

Per-flight, the risks aren’t significantly different.

A320 seat configuration is 3-3. ATR-72 is 2-2. I’d take a guaranteed not-middle-seat any day.

was just a standard residential setup,

The distinction is important because we are discussing IPv6. A “standard residential setup” with IPv6 would provide the user with an entire subnet rather than a single IP address. We still need a router to pass traffic from the ISP’s network to our own network, but we no longer need NAT.

It’ll take you public IP and translate those packets to use your internal one.

That is NAT, yes. But that is only one small function that a router can perform, and not all routers have NAT enabled. You only need NAT if your ISP only allows you to use a single IP address.

If your computer has an address that starts with 169, 168, or 10 there is a NAT somewhere in your network.

That’s not actually true. I can create such a network without connecting it to the internet, no NAT. I can create a second network, again, no NAT. I can then use a gateway router that allows any node on the first network to reach any node on the second. That router is still not doing any NAT. It’s just passing traffic between two networks.