Lots of naysayers trying to convince everyone not to participate, or to fragment efforts with competing ideas.
So much of our consumer culture is buying shit we don't need like impulse buys and stupid movies and fast food. That's profitable stuff, and skipping that for one day doesn't mean you'll just buy it the next day.
Zero that axis, please.
WinGet, choco, scoop, &c, they all have strengths and weaknesses, which is why I had to write this: https://github.com/brianary/scripts/blob/main/Update-Everything.ps1
It's also why I use Linux at home.
Do they mean "buying" instead of "owning"?
It's the same argument I've heard about the "complexity" of Mastodon: too many choices, which is I guess why people largely stopped going to websites outside the major social networks. Monopoly over competition, it's like everyone is pining for a monarchy.
On top of the likelihood that a ban would be very politically expensive, distracting, and watered down to pointlessness.
The risks of sodium aren't universal (some people appear to have immunity), and were exaggerated by the sugar industry.
Americans explicitly didn't want a national ID.
I'm not sure I'd put much stock in modern polling.
A study suggests the debate had very little impact, but even if it didn't, historically, changing candidates this late hasn't worked out.
https://boingboing.net/2024/07/10/impacts-of-the-presidential-debate-far-overestimated.html
I'm pretty sure they only care about their performative solipsism.
It's actually meditation, isn't it?
Does negging his customers count as an idea?