![](/static/66c60d9f/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://fry.gs/pictrs/image/c6832070-8625-4688-b9e5-5d519541e092.png)
Yeah, and it’s unknown if CS is active after the workaround or not (source: hackernews commentator)
Yeah, and it’s unknown if CS is active after the workaround or not (source: hackernews commentator)
Here’s the fix: (or rather workaround, released by CrowdStrike) 1)Boot to safe mode/recovery 2)Go to C:\Windows\System32\drivers\CrowdStrike 3)Delete the file matching “C-00000291*.sys” 4)Boot the system normally
There’s the provided user-overrides.js that’s meant to do this
It even kinda looks like the dude’s smiling :D
I have! I tried it over a year ago, and LTE wasn’t working so I gave up. According to this it’s still not functioning :( https://wiki.postmarketos.org/wiki/Fairphone_4_(fairphone-fp4)
Yeah it requires a minimum of 2GB RAM. Maybe I’ll finally get that picobox
You mean I finally have a way to watch Youtube in my Samsung TV without ads??? Ooooo I know what I’m doing tonight!
edit: naaah it won’t run on my raspberry :(
I agree 100%, I’ve had similiar rants :D
Somebody once said it to me like this: “If you faceplant into a pile of shit, would you rather wipe your face with a dry paper, or use water for cleaning”
I honestly can’t tell if you’re serious or not.
edit: I’m not from the US and this seems like a very silly legislation. Unless I’m getting whoooshed.
I am fixating on the thing that relates to this picture. It seems to me (honestly, I don’t mean to come off as an ass) that your 2nd point of discussion is very much my “muddying the water” point. I don’t want to discuss that point, as that was totally irrelevant here. If I understood correctly, your 2 points were: (I’m paraphrasing, but) “I don’t understand, why showroom owners should let homeless people sleep inside their premises” and “every other economic system besides capitalism also has these qualities”
Right? And I think I have provided arguments against both of these. What am I missing?
The part where you did actually muddy the waters is that you assumed that the picture depicts problems in a “showroom - homeless person” context, which is clearly not the case (as you contradictingly say yourself and even recognize when you said: “when “capitalism” is written on the photo”). The picture clearly criticizes capitalism as a economic system, but you wanted to make the showroom the focus point of the photo. That is muddying the waters. You dismiss the original critique. Or at least that’s how I read your comment. The difference between “I was talking about multiple points” and “muddying the waters” is not that big.
On the other part, yeah, fair enough. I would compare it to a “utopian socialist society” rather than communistic, but sure whatever. I mean there are countries in the world where taking this picture is very easy, and some (socialist) countries where it’s take a bit of effort to find a situation like this to photograph in the first place (most nordic european countries, for example).
The whole point of the image we are both commenting is a critique on capitalism. You are moving the point slightly towards “critique on showroom owners”.
However let’s not get sidetracked here. In a utopian society there would be showrooms, yes. But the person would not be forced to sleep outside without a bed in such a society, be there showrooms or not. That is the point. Capitalism allows this, a socialist society doesn’t (just look at the countries with least homeless people and you’ll see)
The systemic solution is not a utopian communist society, but a system which provides beds for those who need it. The picture highlights this problem.This is not a critique on the showroom, or the store owner (which is how you interpreted it), this is a critique on society. You were the one who muddied the waters (and assumed that someone is proposing a communist society, another argument fallacy). The point is not “letting homeless people use the showroom beds” but rather “letting homeless people use beds”.
It’s a critique on capitalism, where we have the technology and products to improve our quality of life but restrict access to them for a considerable percentage of humas. You’re welcome.
As a former polyamoric person, here’s how I (still) think of it: You can’t control your feelings (they are merely physical reactions to situations) but you can control how you deal with them. Or how you act on them.
So in a sense, in my opinion, you’re both correct.
As someone who just learned about Caddy, could you elaborate?