Drewmeister

I get some dead pixels when I open this

If they are "the same in this particular sense" then use that language instead. In no other context do people use the phrase "these are the same" meaning "these have something in common." I wouldn't defend the phrase "Galas and Fijis are the same" because of their similarities any more or less than if I were to compare apples and oranges. I'd say they're both apples or they're both fruit or any number of specific descriptors that they actually share.

It seems to me that if people are using this language as you suggest then they should communicate more clearly, or, more likely, this isn't what they mean.

That's really considerate of her to not compare them

I don't use Linux. I'm here from /all. I last attempted Linux probably around 2006 or so. The biggest thing I remember was driver support being awful. I guess it's a lot better now?

My biggest hurdle to making the switch is that it takes effort. It's not because I'm lazy; it's because I don't see any need to put in effort. Because I already have an OS, and it works fine. I know that to some, particularly in this community, there are a lot of things about Windows to complain about, but the vast majority of users can't come up with a list of things that bothers them about their daily OS. If my computer already had Linux on it, I'd probably feel exactly the same way.

I can't really tell what's real anymore

When he specifically asked them not to?

Maybe a mid-sized city in a deep blue state. Metros will be more expensive and more progressive, and rural towns will be cheaper and more conservative. So you might try your luck with the purple in between. While the environment would be more of a mixed bag than, I don't know, San Francisco or something, the state governments would be able to be counted on at least to be consistent.

He won't be right about tariffs because he (and you, I suppose) has a gross misunderstanding about how tariffs should be implemented. Tariffs are typically used to strengthen a local product. Say that we wanted to support Napa wine. We might introduce a tarrif on importing wines from our largest competitors. This would increase the cost of the foreign product in relation to the domestic product and encourage consumers to buy locally. So, why won't this work if we just tarrif everyone for everything? Well, we don't make everything so they're isn't a local option to buy instead. Not just for you, but for the companies that make the things you consume. Oh, then let's just build up the industries to make everything. Even disregarding that we don't have the ability to produce everything due to, well, climate and resources, that would cost many millions of dollars and years of investment before seeing a profit. Which is a nice idea if businesses had any faith that the tariffs are permanent, which they don't not only because the current administration (likely lol) won't be in power forever, but also because the current administration has said that they are willing to negotiate. So why bother making the investment when you can import again soon? And lastly, if we try to strong-arm everyone at the same time, they'll just band together without us. They don't need to trade with us if they have an alternative in a more profitable trade partner, and we've just incentivized the entire world to look for a better option than us. We did that. All at once. The idiocy is frankly astounding.

Hi, I'm Nicole! holds up spork But u can call me t3h PeNgU1N oF d00m!