Obviously they experience fires, but they're not nearly as devastating as the LA fire because Finland does actual fire prevention.

Isn't that just their nomenclature for immutable?

What's the difference between an atomic distro and an immutable one?

How come?

I'm sure global warming doesn't help us with fires like this but saying it's a "undeniable sign of climate change" is plain bullshit.

There's a reason they don't have these devastating fires in Sweden or Finland..

It's it's a command that is regularly used it should be baked into the gui somehow.

I need Hdr and vrr to work and a replacement for madvr that can make movies look as good as it can.

That's what's holding me, and multiple people I know, from moving to Linux.

The hdr and vrr seems to be about there but as far as I understand there's still not an equivalent to madvr.

It seems like some distros have HDR working on most things.

I've been wanting to move from windows to Linux for about 10 years now but there's always been something that Linux just didn't do that stopped me.

I look into it every few years and now it seems like the only thing missing is the last few HDR hickups.

For a long time my issue with moving was that there was nothing on Linux that could compare to madvr. It seems like mpv is getting close.

Hopefully it'll all get done before the support for windows 10 ends.

If video/audio playback and HDR is completely fixed before then I believe a lot of people will move to Linux rather than Windows 11.

That depends who you ask.

Thank you. I read through the article and it does indeed say that scientist think we could experience 10m sea level rise over the coming centuries.

I read a lot about this issue around 10 years ago but I can see that the scientific consensus has changed since then.

I'd like to see those sources. Sea level rise is sloooow!

When you say it seems to have better HDR, is that deduced from watching the video or looking at these screen shots? Because if we're talking about the screen shots I'd have to disagree.

Do you use a monitor with hdr and if so have you experienced issues with that?

For such a minor infraction? Absolutely. He even said he'd change for the next day.

If they hadn't reacted like they did no one would have ever heard about this.

No I did not gloss over that. I'm not sure how you could miss my point that much.

I think my example is entirely relevant. The reason I sometimes condone murder is when I don't find it morally wrong, so obviously that's also what the discussion is about.

You're whole argument about not being able to condone a criminal act without having to change the laws makes very little sense to me.

Back when slaves were legal it was illegal to kill a slave owner. I understand that and I think that's how it needed to be. You can't have laws that killing someone is legal.

On the other hand I don't morally condemn the slaves that rose up and actually did kill their "owners".

I absolutely can say something should be illegal but in certain cases I'm cool with it happening.

So that does in fact mean you'd prefer a country where slaves are still legal, because it took quite a lot of murder before slavery was made illegal in the US.

I think you have a very childish point of view.

I challenge you to find a single person arguing in favor of making murder legal. I've never seen or heard anyone do that.

I think it can be needed sometimes throughout history when the inequality between rich and poor becomes too great, that doesn't mean I think it should be legal..

You're basically saying you'd prefer to still live in a country where slaves are legal, over anyone ever having being murdered?

The South didn't just turn around one day and decide slavery should be removed.. Violence and murder was a major factor in that and there are countless other examples.

I know those models and am all for them. I'm Scandinavian so I'm not at all for eye for an eye type of justice.

The original comment I was replying to said something along the lines of "these people don't understand justice".

I was just pointing out that justice is a feeling more than anything else. You can point out that restorative justice is a better way for society to go and it works better for most individuals too but if someone says that they don't feel like justice has been served you can't say they're wrong.

They just have a different opinion on what justice is.

I agree 100%, but I was never discussing what should be legal or illegal.. Obviously any murder should be illegal. I don't think anyone would disagree with that.

That doesn't change my opinion that sometimes murder is needed to affect change and sometimes it's even the morally right thing to do..

You honestly thought I was advocating for making murder legal?