Ah, thank you for the explanation, I think I get it.

I don’t know about this in depth, but from what another user in this thread said, a flatpak can’t ask a portal to have access to two files at once. If I’m understanding correctly, that would explain why Librewolf needs permission to access ~/Downloads, since it can be downloading more than one file at once, and it needs access to all those files in ~/Downloads at the same time.

EDIT: I got a bit mixed up with what you were saying, but nevertheless, if this is true, then Librewofl would still need permission to access ~/Downloads and so be marked as “potentially unsafe”.

Not for the average/casual user, which is why this post exists.

The average person will look at that and see the ‘!’ in a triangle and became scared of what it can do to their system, even though it has no more permissions than a system package. Alternatively, they will become desensitized and learn to ignore it, resulting in installing flatpacks from untrusted and unverified sources.

Overall, I just think the idea around having to sandbox all flatpaks is not a good idea. To give a concrete example, Librewolf is marked as “potentially unsafe” because it has access to the download folder, but if I want to use it to open a file that isn’t in “downloads” I have to use flatseal to give it extra permissions - it’s the worst of both worlds! Trying so hard to comply with flatpak guidelines that it gets in the way of doing things, and still not being considered safe enough.

And so they vote republican?

Either way, not much else is gonna matter when the planet is too hot to live on, and entire Islands full of people go underwater, and no other country is willing to take in the refugees.

Sorry if I sound so evangelical about this shit, but that’s because I’m fucking surrounded by these “80% who total care” people, and I see how they live their lives and the decisions they make. It’s fucking lip service and pushing of the responsibly on to other people while hoping you don’t have to make any changes in your life. Or, at best, it’s complete fucking ignorance.

So 80% want stronger climate action? But not enough to vote for green parties, and even not enough to not vote for anti-climate action parties?

Using the US as example and assuming the Dem/Rep split is about 50/50: if all Dem voters want “stronger climate action”, then that means 30% of Rep voters are voting for anti-climate policy while claiming to want stronger climate action.

Sounds to me like those 80% don’t really know how bad the issue is or how much needs to be done. Which means they are lying to themselves or to others, and this number is actually meaningless. That’s the point the user above you is making, and it seems you agree.

Yes.

Do Democrats all agree 100% with each other? Do Republicans? They still manage to get together to vote for those parties. How many single issue voters are out there?

But I’m expected to believe 80% want significant climate action or have any clue what that would really entail, but can’t get together and vote for a green party? Perhaps if by “stronger climate action” they mean more electrical cars and recycling bins, or maybe these 80% even include people who want more green coal, but I’m sure we both know that doesn’t mean really mean anything.

You can’t assume from people voting for one of the only two parties that can win an election

The survey says 80%… that is enough to get any party to win. Hell, if you dare to dream high enough, that number is high enough to completely set the current government to the side, deny their legitimacy, and make a new governmental system - like one which is not a “first-past-the-post system”.

The argument of “only two parties that can win” is nonsensical in this context, no offense.

Either way, the US is not the only country in the world, and it’s not the only example the other user gave. Even if we ignore the US, how do you justify this in other countries that don’t have a first-past-the-post system? Like I said in another comment:

Survey’s also show that most people want carbon taxes, but look what happens when the price of gas goes up.

People don’t like that, and it affects how they vote.

For example if we do something relatively small like ending beef subsidies here in the US, then ground beef will double or triple in price, and people will naturally consume much less.

And you think people will be okay with that and just let it happen? A politician does that and not only are they not elected again, they might have protests and even riots on their hands. You can’t post c/vegan without non vegans showing up and being disruptive. Which begs the question: why would politicians ever do it when they know this?

You can’t have systemic change if people aren’t willing to change their lives in the first place. People often say they want this or that, but don’t actually stop to think what that requires. Survey’s also show that most people want carbon taxes, but look what happens when the price of gas goes up. What do people think carbon taxes will do? Well, the answer is they don’t really think about it; they just think “tax for company to help climate”, and that’s where it stops.

If you want systemic change, then you also need to acknowledge and raise awareness to the need to take accountability and change our own lifestyles, otherwise that systemic change will never work. Going around saying we could all “change our lifestyles and it wouldn’t matter” and that “what we need is systemic change” in response to people talking about taking personal accountability, does, ironically, very little to bring about that needed systemic change; or at least that’s my perspective.

Linux and Android handles .webp just fine tho

I can’t speak for all distros and DEs, and I also don’t do many image related things, but I’m using Linux Mint Cinnamon and the default desktop background manager doesn’t support .webp. Sometimes I see a cool image that I want to use and I have to convert it; other times, when I notice it’s .webp, I just give up on that image.

Mint’s default wallpaper manager doesn’t, and Discord doesn’t let me pick a .webp as an avatar. Those seem like 2 pretty big ones that don’t work.

I’ve also run into other less common examples over time, but those are more random spread out things and I don’t remember what they are.

I think they mean if you’re a woman (trans or cis), it can be terrifying to meet with people. At least that’s how I interpreted it.

Edit: Perhaps they are also talking about non-binary people, which is why they chose the words “not male presenting”.

The fact that most comments here seem to be talking about stone henge says otherwise. If not for what happened to stone henge recently, people might not have paid this much attention to this.

It’s an older game, but I would say Dragon Age: Origins (the DLCs/complete edition make it even better).

There are fewer companions and most of them are human IIRC, but overall I think they are better fleshed out and more interesting. I liked them all more than most BG3 companions, perhaps in part because they aren’t all nymphomaniac bisexuals who try to jump in your pants as soon as you look them in the eye and say “hello”.

The story is perhaps a bit more grounded than in BG3, but I overall liked it more and though the overall world and cast of characters were more interesting. You even get a unique starting area depending on your race/class! And even though BG3 is perhaps larger in terms of actual map area, but in DA:O you explore so much more of the world and go through so many different areas with different societies/kingdoms that it ends up feeling bigger and richer in lore, IMO.

Other than that, I would maybe also add Planescape: Torment(*), Fallout: New Vegas, Disco Elysium.

^{Yes, I am aware I am a basic bitch.}

(*) Disclaimer for Planescape: Torment; the last third or so of the game was made by a different team, and you can definitely tell, but it’s worth getting through to the ending.

EDIT:

I forgot to mention this, but it might be important to some people: regarding combat, in DA:O it’s just ok, in P:T and FNV it’s just there to get you through the story, and Disco Elysium doesn’t even really have combat. BG3 has by far the best combat, so if that’s something that is important to you, then it’s worth to keep that in mind.

Ok 👍 😘

You managed to say a lot without really saying anything. And when did I argue semantics or put words in someone’s mouth?

I’m not gonna go through this entire conversation again, so I’ll just link you my last comment which should sum up my thoughts relatively well.

Okay, this comment was the best so far and actually seemed to care to make a point/converse, so I’ll make just one final reply.

Your first sentence might be true for older men, or men who are already “allies” to put it simply, but it’s simply not true for younger men, and again it’s also just unhelpful and pushes people away. Overall, it makes you sound like you care more about being angry and being right, than actually helping to make society better. Not that I don’t understand that feeling by the way, I’m just saying it’s unhelpful and not constructive.

And yeah, off course there will always be some men who will feel threatened anyway when people raise the issue, but the question is how many feel threatened and “othered” in one situation versus in the other situation. I mean, I’d hate to fall from a ladder, but I’d rather fall from a short ladder than a tall one; does that make sense? I’d rather you go with the option that will push less young men into the arms of people like Andrew Tate, rather than the one that will push the most just because you’re angry and want to make your point in the most brutish way possible.

And they will feel ‘othered’ because the patriarchy has raised them to believe they are the superior humans because of their gender and any suggestion that some men may do the wrong thing where women are concerned is an explicit threat to them personally.

They feel “othered” because the meme is inherently sexist, and if they complain they get called sexist. Again, imagine if instead of “men” this is talking about a marginalized group and the problem becomes explicit. Just because men are not a marginalized group in society, does not mean that the same feelings are not evoked in them when confronted with such rhetoric.

What are you talking about? When did I even say anything like that? Of course they will still get threats, the point is what is the best way to move forward, raise attention to these issues to bring about a better society, instead of making the situation worse, which is what I think your behavior does.

I’m really not sure if you’re even engaging in good faith and I’m not gonna spend all day on this, so this will be the final thing I’ll say:

I think that meme is unnecessarily divisive and will cause the average man (at least young man/teenager) who stumbles into it to feel attacked, and even more so when accused of either “not getting it” or “being a misogynist”; and in a time when they are just a couple clicks away of falling into and alt-right pipeline that will acknowledge their feelings and tell them the left/progressives have it out for them, it’s really unproductive to use rhetoric like that, which can make them feel “othered” and part of an out group.

By just highlighting the experiences of women in the society we live in, and all the sexual violence they fall victims to, and how much violence is specifically directed at women - without resorting to cheap inflammatory “memes” (*). And as another way to a solution, we can also just try to be and create good role models for young men.

(*)And saying that has actually reminded me, that’s usually exactly how the far right likes to act and spread their message too: inflammatory rhetoric that can make a catchy sound bite that will reach a lot of people, but which has no real depth to it. I’d rather not those tactics and actually try having real conversations.

Gr8 argument m8!

Should be pretty clear if you actually bothered to read it, but I’ll spell it out for you: P-R-O-G-R-E-S-S-I-V-E-S; and overall people who acknowledge the experiences of women that this is supposed to highlight. And I am also on that side, I just think you’re doing an absolute shit job of it, being needlessly discriminating, and creating division - as I already explained.

Yeah, god forbid people get angry when others make sexist remarks! They must be real misogynists for not liking sexism!

If you replaced the “man” with “black man” or “black person”, or if someone said this with immigrants, it wouldn’t need to be explained to you or anyone why this is a pretty fucked up thing to say, but for some reason when it’s just “man” it’s okay and anyone who disagrees is a misogynist, according to you. If I made a general frustrated remark about women, plenty of people would take issue with it, and I don’t think you’d would be saying “it wasn’t meant to be a debate, it was meant to illustrate a point”, would you?

How about just stop using sexist rhetoric? There are a lot of people on your side who would agree with you if you just dropped the needlessly sexist and divisive rhetoric.

And before you get there - and if not you then I’m sure someone will think of saying it - yes, it’s true that the world and system we live in isn’t as hostile to men as women, black people, and immigrants, but progressive spaces definitely tend to be the opposite. And believe it or not, that actually has an effect with pushing younger men into the arms of the alt right; you can insult them and just call them fascists if you like, but that doesn’t change the reality that young hormonal men going into progressive spaces and seeing this kind of rhetoric will feel excluded, pushed out, and like the world is against them.