If one or more of the guys making the most money at proton is pro-trump and makes donations, isn’t that the same thing as the company doing it? Like if Willy Wonka funded rainforest restoration, buying his chocolate is directly supporting the rainforest regardless of if it’s the factory or the CEO doing it.

In an age where corporations and the rich are literally destroying the world, I think it’s reasonable for people to greatly weigh the political byproduct of their purchases. Proton doesn’t seem to care about privacy or improving the world or being a good company, they seemingly just care about making enough money through catering to the privacy crowd. For me, going non-google isn’t to hurt Google it’s to support smaller owned businesses who also want to support smaller owned businesses and their community.

I think a ceiling would actually be healthy. I don’t love that we’re still pandering to the rich even with this summary. Still, it’s good to push any healthy message. I’m just saying it could be better. No one in the entire world needs more than 20 million dollars. No one. That should be the highest we allow, and even lower would be better.

I worked for a company in both countries - so I was fortunate enough to use the Blue Card visa. If you can make that work, that lets you work anywhere in the EU which is great for back up.

Path to permanent residency in Germany takes 3 years, low language skill, and a civic test. Will be doing that in 2026.

Citizenship takes 5 years and medium language skill. I’m a bit away from that.

Generally, I think the path to citizenship is fair but the easier they make it the better the country will be (to a point I guess).

Moved to Germany. I feel very welcome here. Theres a very similar political problem growing in Germany, several large political parties that either want things to get only slightly better or a lot worse, and a growing fascist party that wants to enrich themselves by hurting other people. But it doesn’t feel close to the tipping point like the US is, so I still recommend it.

I always feel welcome, except for a drunk white German here and there yelling at me for not knowing the language (I’m working on it, but languages have always been hard for me).

There’s a housing crisis everywhere and immigrants are not the problem, it’s the fact that housing is a financial investment vehicle and the wealthy are only getting wealthier while most everyone else is getting poorer. You’re not oppressing people by moving to their country and paying taxes. You’re the villain if you dodge taxes, are a landlord (and aren’t fighting to tear down the current housing system), or have 5 million+ and aren’t fighting to help people and fix the system.

I think that’s the surface level, rational reading, but I think the realistic reading is it was simply a kickback to fortune 500 companies that got these politicians elected. Haven’t we already funded at least one factory that ended up being smoke and mirrors?

Which is totally valid… And also the entire point of my comment. This video had Linus Torvalds in it, giving a pretty decent interview, while building a Linux PC and this thread was nothing but hate. Literally no appreciation for the positive impact LTT was having in a community that, at least on paper, should be over the moon.

I don’t see much Torvalds stuff on camera, so this was nice. I’m not asking people to like LTT, it’s just the dialogue around them on reddit and Lemmy feels extremely immature and outspoken and in this instance felt detrimental to the space and the supposedly shared hobby.

LTT was a big supporting factor for why I degoogled and switched to Linux when I did. It was partially because of their work I jumped over to self-hosting, open source, or other less “evil corpo” apps.

I’m not really interested in defending the channel or the guy, especially in areas so polluted with hate for the guy, but there’s no way they were paid by Microsoft to slander Linux and tbh I never took their Linux videos as overly critical or completely thorough examinations of the Linux experience. Idk, just feels like over exaggeration on the part of people who have too much fear a bit of non-perfect coverage will hurt their darling product.

God damn the LTT hate is huge in this channel. I don’t really get it, but shit you guys really don’t like a tech review channel.

When I posted this, there wasn’t a single comment about the actual interview with Linus Torvalds. That’s a crazy amount of vitriol.

I don’t know how many people have watched SG-1 recently but my wife and I just watched the movie and the first like 8 episodes for the first time in the last two months and… It was not good. The tech made no sense, the plot often times made no sense, the characters were very 90’s television, and of course there was a lot of racial, sexism, xenophobia embedded or explicit in each episode.

I’m happy people enjoyed it in its time, and if you still watch it and like it that’s fine. But I wouldn’t recommend this show to anyone young or that I know personally cause it wasn’t good.

Stargate felt like it lacked the philosophical core that other sci-fi shows at the time (or before) had and didn’t have the sci-fi down really either. It was mostly “look at these lesser earth based cultures”, “nerds are so annoying”, “cool military guys are just built different”. Coming off of Babylon 5 which had like Worker rights episodes or nearly any season of early Star Trek, SG-1 felt hollow. I’m surprised people like Stargate as much as they do.

I think that’s a great idea.

I mean, I like the other reply to this comment as well, but if a man posts in an all women community twice in quick succession after being warned it’s pretty easy to assume their intentions are bad - right? Like there are things people can say or do that are so engrained in the behavior of bad faith actors that you can kinda spot them.

My point was just to reinforce that I agree with the notion that people can maliciously attempt to ruin a community or discourage individuals/groups from posting and that they should be banned. “No Nazi’s in the bar” kinda thing.

I completely agree. I just wish I could systematically prevent myself from making any mistake lol, or like anyone from making the first mistake.

Anyone doing it intentionally is a dick and should be blocked. This is just an interesting problem for the platform we’re on and I’m excited to see how the Internet develops overtime to fix this.

I think it’s hard simply because browsing by /all, or even by communities you follow and then just in your main thread, is not set up to highlight the community or it’s rules. If something hits the front page of /all I’m rarely digging into the communities specific rules or even where it’s coming from to an extent. Only to say, it’s a learned behavior to care about the communities specifically in this site aggregator system.

All of that being said, people of course should respect community rules and learn the behavior of identifying what room they’re in before engaging with that community. I’m just not surprised when these flimsy barriers fail.

Is the best behavior to block any community you don’t or can’t participate in? I personally don’t love that behavior because I like seeing what everyone is discussing in threads, but that’s a reasonable solution. Obviously my current strat is just reading the community before posting (like not commenting negatively about Star Gate getting a new season in the star gate community as an example that happened today lol).

I understand you might believe you’re simply explaining why, but based on specifically the sentence I quoted in my last comment it reads like you are explicitly justifying their actions. Again, your intent my have been completely different and I believe you when you say it was. But I would expect people to react to your writing as it was written, not as it was intended.

I’m sorry you’re getting as much flak as you are. Definitely not warranted based on the top comment alone, but I was only responding to a different commenter to explain my perspective as to why it was happening.

Again, with evil on the rise having opinions and stances are important. You didn’t intend to relay either of those things, but I at least think you did (and I would water most of your downvoters did too). We’re all learning how to communicate effectively online. Sorry this spiraled out of control. Idk what /u/iii is on about, but I’m at least trying to contribute to the meta conversation about communicating on Lemmy better (not that anyone has to, this is supposed to be a hobby or fun or what have you, no one has to get better at communicating online).

“The EU needed to either loosen up too or accept this entire sector of information tech being foreign-controlled, which would have its own major privacy and security problems.”

This is the original commenter justifying why the EU is attempting to loosen their privacy laws. This is not factual, this is not an objective truth, this is one person’s perspective about why the EU is doing what they’re doing and in a way that defends their position.

If they had said, “Maybe the EU felt the need to… In fear of this entire sector…” That would have revealed that statement to be a less objective, more theoretical opinion - which is what it is. But they didn’t. They wrote it as a fact, defending their decision as if A) that was true B) that was the reason instead of a handful of reasons C) it was the only path forward.

I think if you’re reading that statement by the original commenter in any other way, we’re at least misaligned on what they’re saying. I would argue that statement plainly reads as defending their actions by guessing (even if reasonable or intelligently) as to their motives.

I think you’re throwing around tribal like a buzzword you recently became aware of. I like people having opinions on random comment based forums online. I don’t like when people don’t add to the conversation and yet comment anyway, allowing for wasteful conversations like this to take place. The original commenter explained a thing no one asked to be explained at best and defended a perspective that I think is objectively short sighted at worst. I have no problem with the first and I don’t like the second but also am happy to talk to people who hold those opinions if they’re looking for a safe place to discuss and debate them.

Now that’s a couple ways of interpretting what the original commenter said, both of which I think are justifiable although I lean obviously to one way. Does that read like I’m simplifying the problem reductively? Does that read like I’m asking people to throw stones at the commenter? Has anything I’ve written even read like I’m forming a group of like minded people, virtue signaling, and running the other person out of town?

I would say no, obviously not. You seem frustrated at online discourse, or maybe you’re just pro-these-actions and can’t separate them from this conversation. You wanna talk about the actions of the EU, that’s cool. You wanna talk about one random person’s perspective as to why the original commenter got downvotes, that’s cool. You want to acuse me of being simple, when I’m clearly responding to what the person wrote and only what the person wrote (both the first commenter and the person I responded to), that seems like a waste of time. It’s surely not adding anything to the conversation for me at least.

But here we are.

I mean, I like when I ask someone to explain a problem and then do. I don’t personally like it when someone explains a problem that’s pretty obvious.

My point is the original commenter, by explaining something no one asked to be explained, sort of gave away their opinion with their explanation. Actually, on second read it’s far more explicit - they’re defending why the change was made, not just explaining what happened. The downvotes were warranted (if you use downvotes as “this is a bad opinion, perspective, or contribution” which is debatably not their purpose).

But the reality is even in describing a problem you’re coloring reality with your perspective. There are facts, things everyone can agree on, but in describing those things you color them. It doesn’t have to be tribal to push back on someone coloring the loss of privacy laws for the betterment of AI companies as a good or necessary thing (like the original commenter did).

Explaining something no one asked to be explained without providing an opinion on the subject itself reads like tacit approval. On a subject such as this - "reduce your privacy for the benefit of AI companies that are some number of:

• monopolies that should have been busted many times over
• run by evil, greedy people who do not consider safety for the entire world when developing these things (reference Musk saying there’s a chance these destroy the world but that he’d rather be alive to see it happen than not contribute to the destruction)
• companies aiming not to better the world in anyway but explicitly pursue money at any real cost to the human lives they’re actively stealing from or attempting to invalidate." - it’s no surprise the comment is unpopular and gets downvoted.

If I stopped my comment there I’d get voted on based on my explanation of what just happened assuming I was pro-this process because that’s human nature (or maybe it’s a byproduct of modern media discourse where they ask questions but don’t answer them and expect you to fill in the blanks (look at most of conservative media when it’s dog whistling or talking about data around crime or what have you)).

I don’t think someone should be voted into the ground for explaining something, but I also think every online comment should do it’s best to make a stand on the core subject they’re discussing. We are in dire times and being a bystander let’s evil people win.

So practicing what I’m preaching: Privacy laws should absolutely not be reduced for the benefit of AI companies. We should create regulations and safety rails around AI companies so they practice ethically and safely, which won’t happen in the US.

Honestly not missing much lol. There’s like 1000 hours of good TV content in total out there IMHO.

I was going off of protondb. I can’t vouch for each game on the list’s exact state on any given day, only that according to everyone who ranks on the website it’s native or gold.

Apex Legends worked on Linux every year except this one. League I’m told dropped support only recently (in the last couple of years). Like, idk man, there’s ups and downs to this data, but the point is not all competitive multiplayer games don’t work on Linux and seemingly the majority do based on steam and protondb data.

This keeps getting repeated as a blanket statement and it irks me a bit. More than half of the top ten most played games on steam on any given day work. There’s a small handful of games that don’t work that fit into the competitive multiplayer genre and an even smaller handful that are actually popular.

To be clear, I’m not irk’ed with you, just that this myth that gets passed around a lot hasn’t caught up to reality.

Top games by player count by daily players (numbers are peak in 24 hrs)(skipping anything that doesn’t qualify as competitive multiplayer):

1. CS 2 - ✅ - 1.4 mil
2. BF 6 - ❌ - 413k
3. Dota 2 - ✅ - 761k
4. Pubg - ❌ - 620k
5. Arc Raiders - ✅ - 322k
6. Apex Legends - ❌ - 155k
7. War Thunder - ✅ - 78k
8. Delta force - ❌ ✅ (work around exists) - 182k
9. Marvel rivals - ✅ - 83k
10. Dead by Daylight - ✅ - 66k
11. Naraka: Bladepoint - ✅ - 120k
12. Rust - ❌ (some servers do work though) - 130k

✅ Top 20 total - 2.83 mil ❌ Top 20 total - 1.5 mil (including Delta force)

Idk. Having just crunched the numbers I guess it’s fair to warn people about some borked Anti-Cheat games but I wish people would caveat by saying the majority of games people play even in the competitive multiplayer scene work. And it’s only going to get better i’d argue, although games like bf6 being a recent launch that didn’t work is a bummer. As the percentage of Linux users climb they’ll be increasingly incentivized to find a solution.

League isn’t on here, that would skew the numbers pro-windows.