🌐 https://www.cynicusrex.com

  • 0 Posts
  • 13 Comments
Joined 2 months ago
Cake day: August 27th, 2024
  • Cynicus Rex@slrpnk.nettoLinux@lemmy.ml•Is Linux (dumb)user friendly yet?English
    5·
    2 months ago

    Yes. Linux has become more user-friendly than Windows. Things stay were they are so it is reliable. It doesn’t serve ads nor spies on the user so it is ethical. When updating one sees exactly what happens, and one can have perfect manual control of updates if one wants to. That and so much more.

    Sidenote, perhaps consider using Vivaldi browser as it is superior for now, pre Manifest V3. However, if one wants to keep using uBlock Origin indefinitely regardless of the Manifest V3 transition, use LibreWolf which ships with uBlock Origin by default.

    Over the years I went from Linux Mint to Xubuntu to EndeavourOS, and from desktop environment Xfce to KDE Plasma. To beginners who absolutely want the least amount of updates and don’t mind older software versions I’d suggest a Debian based distribution, and to everyone else I’d suggest an Arch-based distribution, specifically EndeavourOS, or Manjaro if one cannot install the former for some reason, but both are fine. Why? I like to update as soon as possible and to have access to most software without it being a hassle to install. Moreover, Arch has a ridiculously comprehensive wiki which most of the time has the answer to one’s problem.

    KDE Plasma over Xfce because it’s a remarkably configurable feature-rich powerhouse, but I honestly feel bad and wish I could merge them both. If old machines feel too slow for the former, the choice would be Xfce in a heartbeat because it is fast, minimalistic, and also highly configurable.

    I moved away from the aforementioned Debian/Ubuntu based distributions because Mint was too bloated and slow for my taste. Specifically, as a former gamer I am highly sensitive to the responsiveness of the cursor, therefore the move to Xubuntu with Xfce where the mouse movement felt snappy again. Unfortunately Snap packages came to both which caused more problems than it solved, so I moved to Arch-based distributions and never looked back.

    TL;DR: if new computers did not come with Windows pre-installed—the absurdity of this monopoly remains mind blowing—Linux would be significantly more pleasant to use for most of the populace. I bet my life on that.

  • Cynicus Rex@slrpnk.nettoMemes@lemmy.ml•I hate these iconsEnglish
    2·
    2 months ago

    “Responsible” and “Bitcoin” is an oxymoron due to the inherent multi-level marketing pyramid/Ponzi scheme aspect of crypto“currencies”.

    First, you’re removing the next two words “financial diversification” from the statement. Your own personal opinions and emotions aside, financial diversification is not a bad idea. It’s all about percentages and risk calculations. I would agree with you if they went “all in” on crypto, but they didn’t say that.

    Gambling or buying into a pyramid scheme doesn’t belong to the category of financial diversification, let alone responsible financial diversification. Responsible financial diversification is investing in skills, property, purchasing cooperatives, official/institutional crowdfunding projects with sustainability in mind—not purely profit, ethical index funds, et cetera.

    Second, you’re lumping in bad people with good tech that has solved a very specific problem - the ability to transfer funds without relying on a central bank or authority. Is email bad because the majority is spam? No. Is the internet bad because the dark web exists and thousands if not millions of crimes are being carried out on it? No. Are encrypted messengers bad because they allow criminals to send message? No. Same concept here. There can exist a good technology that gets abused by bad people.

    All whataboutism fallacies. Crypto“currencies” incentivize greed. Not so for email, the Internet, messengers, et cetera. The only legitimate usecase for these alternative currencies is financing whistleblowers, journalists, individuals who have to break unethical laws and are therefore disconnected from the banking system.

    “Money corrupts; bitcoin corrupts absolutely.

    You can stop at “money corrupts”. bitcoin is money and money corrupts.

    Bitcoin more so because of its multi-level marketing / pyramid scheme aspect. When one buys USD or EUR one doesn’t try convincing their peers to buy it too so their own wealth goes up.

    Disregarding all of bitcoin’s shortcomings, a financial instrument that brings out the worst in people—greed—won’t change the world for the better.”

    Disregarding all of the U.S. Dollar’s shortcomings[1], a financial instrument that brings out the worst in people—greed—won’t change the world for the better.”

    Fixed it for you.

    [1] The US spent 877 BILLION dollars on its defense budget (as much as the next 10 countries combined!) to ensure the USD keeps its power.

    Whataboutism fallacy again.

  • Cynicus Rex@slrpnk.nettoMemes@lemmy.ml•I hate these iconsEnglish
    11·
    2 months ago

    ”Do you disagree with their reason?

    Responsible financial diversification requires holding some assets outside of the traditional government controlled banking system.

    They didn’t say they were going all in. They aren’t continuously promoting - at least not that I’m aware. They were just being open and honest about how they’re handling their finances.”

    I absolutely disagree.

    1. “Responsible” and “Bitcoin” is an oxymoron due to the inherent multi-level marketing pyramid/Ponzi scheme aspect of crypto“currencies”.
    2. “Money corrupts; bitcoin corrupts absolutely.
      Disregarding all of bitcoin’s shortcomings, a financial instrument that brings out the worst in people—greed—won’t change the world for the better.” —https://www.cynicusrex.com/file/cryptocultscience.html