If you want to measure efficiency, population is not the way to do it, economic output is. After all, a person laying in bed does not contribute much to emissions, but also not much output.
The US has 3/4 the GDP of China with less than half the emissions. The EU also has 3/4 the GDP of China, but less than 1/4 the emissions. Both are far more efficient
Why are we blaming these companies when there’s a much bigger contributor
US and Europe carbon emissions have gone down in the past 20 years, while China’s has grown rapidly. China accounts for %35 of the world’s emissions. Of course lots of manufacturing for goods happens in China, but this just tells me that capitalism is not to blame here, China is. China needs to raise their carbon taxes. Or maybe manufacturing needs to come back to the US and Europe, where it can be properly regulated.
if it’s impossible to affect change as a single person, then why do anything at all? Why bother to vote? I hear this logic all the time and it doesn’t make sense to me.
That’s not to say that public policy is pointless. “Tragedy of the commons” tells us that regulation is necessary. But I think the framing is wrong. The culprit here is not oil companies. It’s oil. If you tell people “oil companies are evil”, and tax the oil companies more, these people are just going to get mad when the taxes trickle down to them in the form of higher gas prices.
The correct framing is “Oil and gas cost more to us, than the cost of simply digging it out of the ground. The added taxes are to reflect the true cost”. Then people will understand why gas prices need to go up.
Then add on some Infographics and memes that show how much more efficient public transit is. How solar panels pay off over the long term. Etc. Because personal responsibility does in fact make a difference.
You could try torrenting over i2p instead
If all nodes in the network are run by one company then that basic assumption is broken from the start.
That just degrades it to a normal VPN. Allowing others to join the mixnet, gives it a path to more decentralization. But these things have to start somewhere
Bazzite supports consoles, but is far from only targeting consoles. There’s also Aurora which is like Bazzite but without the gaming stuff. Same benefits: background updates, easy rollbacks, and lots of included tools that are just useful (podman, brew, distrobox, etc).
But if you have personal reasons against Fedora then it’s important to be aware that Bazzite and Aurora are both based off Fedora
but don’t call it unstable if it has been perfectly stable for you?
Stability doesn’t just refer to reliability and breakages. It also refers to the size of changes. Because in general, the faster something changes, the more often things break. And I don’t think CachyOS is some magical exception. Remember that this is all relative to other OSes like Fedora, which from my experience has been extremely stable.
Also, why can’t I repeat what I’ve heard from other people? I feel like the VLC breakages that I linked earlier is pretty good evidence of instability. And how do you feel about that incident?
I think the issues are more likely to happen if you update less frequently. I used an Arch distro on my secondary PC for a few months. I admit I never ran into any major breaking issues, but every week or so when I did an update it sure felt like I would run into an issue since the updates were massive. I didn’t even have that much installed. Also reading through PKGBUILD and changelogs was annoying, but if you didn’t do it and ran into an issue the forums would just blame you for not reading them.
So while I didn’t run into any major issues myself, I could sense that maintaining it was more work than I wanted. And later on I read this lemmy post which validated my decision: Realizing Arch isn’t for me after updating broke VLC.
Compare this to the update process of Bazzite. It happens in the background, and automatically applies when you reboot. You don’t even need to be aware of it. You can easily rollback if something breaks. And it’s pretty guaranteed to be stable because all Bazzite users have the same base, so it’s well tested before being released.
Since you liked Fedora but not GNOME, sounds like Bazzite or Fedora KDE could have worked out well too. Just something to consider if you want something more stable and less cutting edge
Doing QA testing for free? You and lil bobby tables would get along great
it’s just a tautology stating that machine-id is indeed used
I stated two things, that machine-id is used and that adoption is high. You’re ignoring the latter. Might be correlation or causation, but definitely not tautology.
You have not provided any rationale for why it’s necessary aside from stating a tautological fact here
This is a gross misrepresentation of my words. I’m not saying it’s necessary, I’m saying it contributed to the success of some of the most private distros that exist today. In other words a net positive. You provided zero evidence that it was a net negative, and demonstrated ignorance about the complexity of engineering.
Either you keep misunderstanding my argument, or deliberately misrepresenting it to avoid admitting its merits. It’s becoming clear which is true.
My evidence was small but should have been easy to understand:
You can argue correlation vs cause but I’d argue this is not zero evidence.
You are on the other hand assuming that it would have been easy to avoid machine-id. Do you have evidence for this claim?
Why should I have to provide evidence while you provide none
First off, your post wasn’t about machine-id, it was about systemd using machine-id, yes? If you think machine-id is a mistake, blame Linux, not systemd. This is a shift from your original claim.
Second, I’ve already explained my argument many times. Machine-id was likely a simple solution to a few problems Linux faced, and Linux was able to keep pace with competition and gain popularity. Same with systemd adopting machine-id. If they focused on fingerprint resistance, then other core features of modern Linux distros would have lagged behind, and I might not be using Linux today.
I feel like my argument is not that hard to follow. I’m saying that just because machine-id makes fingerprinting easier, doesn’t make it a bad decision because it could still lead to a net positive. In the Linux kernel’s case, it might have been a simple solution to other problems, at a time when fingerprinting was not a concern. In systemd’s case, it might have made it easier to accomodate legacy systems that depended on machine-id. Same with flatpak.
Linux, systemd, and flatpak are all fairly successful within their target markets. Clearly, you’re going to need more evidence if you want to claim it’s a bad decision.
In fact even if your goal is privacy and fingerprint resistance, just switching to another init system is not a panacea. First off, as mentioned in the flatpak github issue linked earlier, there are tons of other markers aside from machine-id that can be used for fingerprinting. And if you’re using a mainstream distro, your new init system is likely less supported, meaning more bugs, worse security, and potentially a net loss in privacy.
Win the battle, lose the war. This is why I brought up compromise and strategy earlier.
In the end, it’s hard to say how individual decisions like machine-id, contribute to the net result. There are pros and cons to each decision. Maybe if there was a competitor that didn’t use machine-id and pulled ahead due to that decision, but I’m not seeing one.
You could say the same about Linux itself and machine-id. Fingerprint resistance just wasn’t in the project scope.
Perhaps ask in the github issue I linked earlier why machine-id is necessary at all. They may have their reasons. My guess is that it makes it easier for devs to port their applications to flatpak, namely legacy apps that depended on machine-id.
I’m saying that if flatpak tried to implemenet machine-id obfuscation before releasing, they might not have ever released. By constraining their scope, they were able to focus on their other goals and release, and a lot of Linux users including me, are glad they did so. You can think of systemd’s machine-id situation in the same way
I was agreeing with you. Systemd breaks unix philosophy. You know what else breaks unix philosophy? The Linux kernel. It’s absolutely massive. If you want unix philosophy, switch to a microkernel.
Also another commenter in this discussion pointed out that flatpak does not actually obfuscate machine-id. You can read the issue tracker here: https://github.com/flatpak/flatpak/issues/4311
Basically comes down to a design decisions from 15+ years ago, in things that flatpak depends on. This is an open issue to this day. Would it have been better for flatpak to have delayed release until this was solved, possibly remaining unreleased to this day? Meanwhile everybody would have to use regular system packages, which not only have access to machine-id, but also the entire userspace, with zero sandboxing. I doubt that would be better.
Fossil fuel emissions are also a human construct. We did fine before fossil fuels, and even coal. Population is a horrible measure because all it captures is if you are keeping people alive. Even North Korea can keep people alive. But people want more than just survival.
But fine, you want to talk about population? You’re ignoring the second example I brought up. The EU has 1/3 the population of China and 1/4 the emissions. In other words, China is still the problem.
Edit: I just did the calculation, and North Korea is 4x more “efficient” than China if we are using carbon emissions per capita. I don’t think population is a great measure, to say the least