Yeah for both Ubuntu and Arch on two separate computers in my house, the process was just install the distro then install steam + Lutris (steam for steam games, Lutris for every other kind of game like League or WoW).

Installing steam games is identical in Linux and Windows for the vast majority of games. Installing non-steam games is arguably easier since you never have to go to a web browser.

Honestly the only reason Windows is "easier" is because it's preinstalled on computers. As someone who has fresh installed Linux and Windows, Linux is miles easier to install. To install Windows 11 I tried following their recommendations (enabling TPM and secure boot in bios), but the W11 installer still didn't like my 2 year old computer, so had to open up the command prompt, regedit, and add 3 Bypass registry DWord 32 bit values. Then actually installing the O.S you just sit there and wait with an unusable computer. Linux installations have nice GUIs that are far more modern, don't require weird terminal hacks, and you have a usable computer while it's installing (you can open up Firefox and browse the web for example).

\rant

As a vegan this is the best non-vegan take I've ever seen, thanks. I'll have to find a pig to staple my phone to.

It's also mad that this is also the case for adults. When you turn 18, you shouldn't suddenly lose basic rights (like access to food and shelter), but that's exactly what most capitalists want to happen (and so that's how it works).

Goods with inelastic demand shouldn't be driven by the profit motive. Food, healthcare, housing, etc. We can let luxury goods stay within the private sector for now since people don't need them to survive, and come back to that conversation at a later date.

Note: Lemmy code blocks don't play nice with some symbols, specifically < and & in the following code examples

This isn't a language level issue really though, Haskell can be equally ergonomic.

The weird thing about ?. is that it's actually overloaded, it can mean:

• call a function on A? that returns B?
• call a function on A? that returns B

you'd end up with B? in either case

Say you have these functions

toInt :: String -> Maybe Int

double :: Int -> Int

isValid :: Int -> Maybe Int

and you want to construct the following using these 3 functions

fn :: Maybe String -> Maybe Int

in a Rust-type syntax, you'd call

str?.toInt()?.double()?.isValid()

in Haskell you'd have two different operators here

str >>= toInt <&> double >>= isValid

however you can define this type class

class Chainable f a b fb where
    (?.) :: f a -> (a -> fb) -> f b

instance Functor f => Chainable f a b b where
    (?.) = (<&>)

instance Monad m => Chainable m a b (m b) where
    (?.) = (>>=)

and then get roughly the same syntax as rust without introducing a new language feature

str ?. toInt ?. double ?. isValid

though this is more general than just Maybes (it works with any functor/monad), and maybe you wouldn't want it to be. In that case you'd do this

class Chainable a b fb where
    (?.) :: Maybe a -> (a -> fb) -> Maybe b

instance Chainable a b b where
    (?.) = (<&>)

instance Chainable a b (Maybe b) where
    (?.) = (>>=)

restricting it to only maybes could also theoretically help type inference.

Here's an example (first in Haskell then in Go), lets say you have some types/functions:

• type Possible a = Either String a
• data User = User { name :: String, age :: Int }
• validateName :: String -> Possible String
• validateAge :: Int -> Possible Int

then you can make

mkValidUser :: String -> Int -> Possible User
mkValidUser name age = do
  validatedName ← validateName name
  validatedAge  ← validateAge age
  pure $ User validatedName validatedAge

for some reason <- in lemmy shows up as <- inside code blocks, so I used the left arrow unicode in the above instead

in Go you'd have these

• (no Possible type alias, Go can't do generic type aliases yet, there's an open issue for it)
• type User struct { Name string; Age int }
• func validateName(name string) (string, error)
• func validateAge(age int) (int, error)

and with them you'd make:

func mkValidUser(name string, age int) (*User, error) {
  validatedName, err = validateName(name)
  if err != nil {
    return nil, err
  }

  validatedAge, err = validateAge(age)
  if err != nil {
    return nil, err
  }

  return User(Name: validatedName, Age: validatedAge), nil
}

In the Haskell, the fact that Either is a monad is saving you from a lot of boilerplate. You don't have to explicitly handle the Left/error case, if any of the Eithers end up being a Left value then it'll correctly "short-circuit" and the function will evaluate to that Left value.

Without using the fact that it's a functor/monad (e.g you have no access to fmap/>>=/do syntax), you'd end up with code that has a similar amount of boilerplate to the Go code (notice we have to handle each Left case now):

mkValidUser :: String -> Int -> Possible User
mkValidUser name age =
  case (validatedName name, validateAge age) of
    (Left nameErr, _) => Left nameErr
    (_, Left ageErr)  => Left ageErr
    (Right validatedName, Right validatedAge) => 
      Right $ User validatedName validatedAge

For people unfamiliar with the vim ecosystem (I assume that's at least part of the down votes), it's actually much closer than you'd expect. If you're only familiar with vi/vim, nvim customizations are essentially on feature parity with vscode, with the added benefit of the vim-first bindings.

What you have to do is install a customized neovim environment. Lunarvim, astrovim, nvchad, etc. Most of them have single line installation options for Linux, and then it comes with a bunch of plugins that will pretty much match whatever you'd find with vscode extensions.

Agree on majority of the post, except for "make the choices you feel are right". Hard disagree on this normatively. If you're saying it descriptively, sure, but it's essentially tautological at that point.

We shouldn't advocate that people just act in whatever way feels correct to them. Sociopaths feel like it's okay to do things that are not okay. So do bigots, racists, speciesists, sexists, etc.

We should instead do what you're doing with the majority of your post, advocate for correct positions and then come to a rational conclusion with the people we are talking to. Giving them a get out of jail free card, permitting them to do literally anything, is unnecessary.

This is the idea of class action lawsuits, a bunch of people who normally can be kicked around by giant corporations, coming together and taking them to court because the corporation abused everyone in the same way.

So the answer here is a strong "maybe".

Do you actually hold this position in all situations? It was illegal to harbor Jewish fugitives in Nazi Germany, should those laws be respected?

When you say "no, of course not", maybe actually consider what your position is before posting. Because nobody's position is to just "respect laws" in all circumstances.

Reddit is an interest of mine, but I have no interest in going to reddit anymore. Is that an unimaginable position for you?

I actually convinced my boss to get us a ping pong table, all I had to do was forego my pay for a year!

Totally worth, since I'm not working for the money, I'm working for the culture (our culture is now a ping pong table). It's so awesome that I can use it during my state-mandated breaks 🙂

You can't tell someone they're being pseudo-scientific and then accuse them of being adversarial as if you're not.

I wasn't using circular reasoning, I was citing data. 90,000 rent controlled housing units in NYC are left vacant (this number has been rising). As we both understand, "individual" (either actually an individual or a corporation) capitalists act in their own best interests. They're not leaving these apartments vacant for years just because they want to fuck over poor people, they're doing it because they make more money off their other supply if these units are kept off the market.

If you don't want to feel like you're spouting alt-right talking points, stop using verbatim the talking points that capitalists use to defend housing scalpers. At best, your entire point is "housing scalpers aren't as big of a deal as this other problem", and at worst you're ignoring the real problem so capitalists can keep exploiting the housing market.

You haven't made a case in favor of housing scalpers, and for good reason, there's literally no case to be made for them. The capitalist position is that scalping houses isn't a big enough problem to have an effect on supply. Even if that were true (which would require 16 million housing units being vacant having no impact on housing supply), it doesn't mean that it couldnt be true in the future. What if the number rose to 30 million vacant units with the same population? Or 100 million? Or a billion? At some point it gets ridiculous. To me that's pretty clearly when you're at "we have 30x as many vacant houses as homeless people", but maybe your tolerance is much higher because homeless people aren't economically valuable to capitalists (except as a reserve army of labor).

No people don't "just have the option to move away", that's an incredibly naive way to look at the world, some people need to be in certain locations for social or work reasons.

Also, what I'm saying isn't a "theory", it's an observation of data. You keep trying to rationalize it away, but whatever way you slice it you can't get rid of the 16 million vacant houses that are not in use, while we have half a million homeless people and rising costs housing costs.

You seem to be insinuating that people don't just buy up housing and sit on it, like that's not a phenomenon that exists because you can't fathom why, despite my last comment clearly outlining several reasons how it could happen, and more importantly the fact that it does actually happen.

1. Monopolies in certain areas. Your response? "They can move"
2. Holding onto vacant rent controlled apartments to force people into more expensive units. Your response? "It wastes money" (untrue, in this situation it makes more money, which is why it happens in the real world).
3. There are 16 million vacant housing units while we have half a million homeless people. Your response? Nothing, I guess those people's interests aren't as important as preserving the right for housing scalpers to hoard unused property.

You didn't respond to anything I said. You essentially said "I agree and you're wrong" with some fluff, so uhm okay good talk buddy.

There are a ton of reasons why individuals/corporations would scalp housing units and hold onto them without opening them up to use, from laws requiring fair treatment of renters like in NYC (where 90,000 rent controlled apartments remain vacant), to "unified cartels" actually have incredibly large influence over some areas (there are some companies that hold 10s of thousands of housing units, like blackrock, and these corporations purposefully keep some vacant to inflate the price of all units and control supply).

But even if you want to just close your eyes and ignore my last paragraph, you can try to rationalize away the data, but the data will still be there. There are 16 million vacant housing units in the U.S. Even if you can't fathom any reason why these might exist, they still do, and they still impact supply even if you'd like to believe they don't.

Agreed lol, though iirc they're getting periodically DDOSed, so it's not just normal usage spikes.

I responded when lemmy.world was having issues, so my lemmy client couldn't find your comment and so it just responded at the top level: https://lemmy.world/comment/1975730

Yup. GPU scalpers do the same thing, they buy up an entire stock, and then restrict supply by only letting a couple units go at a time, which inflates the price.

In housing, capitalists lovingly call this practice "investing", when you buy up land or housing and don't rent it out or sell it, you just let it sit and increase in value.

A set of doctrines or beliefs that are shared by the members of a social group or that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.

Edit: this response was part of a chain, but I posted it when lemmy.world was having issues and I think my lemmy client couldn't find the comment it was responding to, so it just posted it at the top level, here's the chain for context: https://lemmy.world/comment/1973311

Capitalism is an ideology, you have a very weird relationship with definitions, first denying what scalping is and now denying what an ideology is. I don't know why you choose to live in a world where you just make up your own definitions, but it makes it harder to communicate.

Demand outstrips supply absolutely, and yeah if we built an infinite number of houses we'd have a fine supply, but also if we didn't have 16 million vacant homes we'd also have a fine supply. We currently have more vacant housing units than homeless people (by a factor of ~30), and capitalists are purposefully restricting supply to increase cost.

I don't know why you choose to live in a world where there is only one possible solution to the housing crisis. I've already said building more would obviously help supply, I don't know why you're so ideologically motivated that you can't admit that putting literally millions of housing units on the market would also help supply. You seem to have an inability to even consider that capitalism could have any problems. That's the epitome of an ideologue.

I'm not a liberal, for whatever that's worth.

Sure, lets build more affordable housing, that's fine.

You ignored my entire point though and went on your own ideological ramble there (one paragraph saying we don't need ideology and the next defending capitalism. Do you read what you write? Lmfao).

Are you saying you don't believe supply/demand is a real thing? Or you just choose to ignore the impact that over 10 million housing scalpers would have on the U.S housing market?

If it's neither of those, then I guess we're in agreement, outlaw housing scalpers and build affordable housing. We could get median housing costs down to a fraction of what they are now, just like other societies have that outlawed scalpers.