https://itsfoss.com/bluesky-vs-mastodon/ This is a comparison about Mastodon vs Bluesky.

Misskey is most similar to Mastodon. Bluesky is also a bit similar to both but still the most different one from the other two. All three are different social networks. Mastodon and Misskey are ActivityPub compatible, meaning they can "speak with" other ActivityPub compatible social networks, e.g. Lemmy, Pixelfed or PeerTube. Together, that's what's called the Fediverse (different federated social networks being able to talk to each other). Bluesky is based on a similar, but different protocol called AT Protocol. It also means it's possible for social network services using this protocol to be compatible to each other. But not sure if it's there in practice yet, if there are even other social networks using this, and so on.

I'd recommend using Mastodon, and in general ActivityPub compatible social network services. They're all open source, anyone can host a server (which is very important, because if the server operator ever does any bullsh!t you're not forced to stay there and still can remain on the social network, just from a different node), they're federated (servers can talk to each other and usually do unless some specific servers are blocked on purpose by the other server), and they're compatible with multiple services also using the same protocol. And there are "big" networks already existing using ActivityPub, most notably Mastodon and Lemmy of course. Also, Meta's Threads is also using ActivityPub, however some Mastodon instance hosts have decided to block Meta's servers (there are good reasons for doing so but explaining this would make this post even longer).

Bluesky is controlled by a company made by ex-Twitter employees, I think its federation capabilities are still limited right now(?), and one can't be so sure how its future is going to look like under these circumstances. We've all seen what happened to Twitter after Musk bought it, so I think only the true, unrestricted open source social network platforms like Mastodon, Lemmy, Pixelfed, Loops.video, PeerTube and so on are the future.

The main source of this recent trending fascism, anti-scientific thinking and so on is social media or the web in general. To resist or refute the mass of false information and find out what's likely true and what's not, requires education, literacy, media competency, things like that. I guess current generations are lacking this so they fall easy prey to "funny" fascist memes, fakes and rhetoric, then vote for rightwing extremists, destabilizing their own country as a result, not realizing that this leads to big disadvantages for everyone including themselves. We failed to protect these younger generations from misinformation, and now they are turning the world into what they are misled to believe is true.

We used to have relatively high living standards in the Western democracies. This will soon all crumble and we (most people who aren't rich) will suffer from it, regardless of who you voted for. And on top of that, climate change will finish us all off, because battling that isn't even on the radar for those fascists because they don't even believe in it. So instead of doing too little, we'll do literally zero and even accelerate the problem, meaning it'll affect us all much sooner already and with higher intensity.

So enjoy your still existing relatively privileged life while it still lasts. It's ging to get much, MUCH worse before it's going to be better again. Buckle up and prepare yourselves.

Probably because Google is actively and frequently banning many Piped or Invidious hosts, and is generally currently at war with "alternative frontends" to YouTube in an effort to make users browse YouTube directly and consume ads there, or buy YouTube Premium. This is in line with their current fight for more ad revenues across their products and services. You probably have to either search for another public instance which isn't banned (yet) from accessing YouTube, or host your own instance.

Well it should be, because anyone who votes for Trump is voting to regress the country into an eventually authoritarian, fascist regime. It shouldn't be a close race. It should be the majority voting to prevent that.

• GUI: Thunderbird
• Terminal: neomutt
• Android: K-9 (soon to be Thunderbird)

• No good operating system preinstalled by default
• No headphone jack anymore

Generally, any top rated game from that period which doesn't rely on "realistic" graphics but instead offers very good gameplay and is kind of timeless and ages well. For example, you shouldn't play the original System Shock 1 anymore, although it was top tier in 1994, because its graphics are very poor for today's standards, it's UI has always been poor, and it's a game that fully relies on immersion, but you can't immerse yourself anymore if both graphics and UI are really poor. Instead, play the System Shock remake from Nightdive Studios which came out recently. It's not the same, but it's very similar, and much better nowadays. Also why you shouldn't play the old STALKERs anymore, although they were amazing and it kind of saddens me to write this, but they really don't offer much immersion today, which is why they didn't age well. I'm writing this because I didn't finish part 3 back in the day and intended to finish it like 2 years ago, but I couldn't stand the dated graphics anymore. For a game which relies fully on immersion, that ruins it.

Here's my list (not in a particular order), I'm focusing on PC games because I never really play that much console or handheld stuff:

• Command and Conquer up until Red Alert (remastered version available). These are classic RTS games in a sci-fi war setting. Some say Total Annihilation was the best RTS during the 90s but I never played it.

---

• Starcraft 1 (remastered version available). This game is also still being played competitively in multiplayer, with an active tournament scene, especially in South Korea. Also great in single player. Famous for its balance, at least on modern tournament maps.

---

• Age of Empires 2 (remastered version available). It's like a mix between a classic RTS and Civilization. Great game, lots of content by itself already, also tons of added content.

---

• Jagged Alliance 2 (great community mods available). You can skip part 1, part 2 was absolutely amazing. A great strategy and tactics based game. It's quite difficult, but great.

---

• Doom 1+2 (remastered version available, very recently updated again on Steam (this month!)). Plenty of 3rd party engines like gzdoom also available which make them look and feel much more modern. Tons of community-made content as well. Special mention: John Romero, one of the original level designers, also made more content over the years (e.g. "Sigil"), which is great as well.

---

• Quake 1+2 (remastered version and 3rd party engines available). These were among the first games fully utilizing 3D-accelerated graphics back in the day, so they pushed boundaries and they brought the pseudo-3D games like Doom 1+2 into a full 3D environment.

---

• Baldur's Gate 1+2 + its expansions (remastered version available). Also highly recommend version 3 of course but that's not an old game. Plenty of mods available for them as well. These are all exceptional RPG games with great story and depth that no RPG fan should skip. They also age well because it's just good 2D art.

---

• Planescape: Torment (only if you a) liked Baldur's Gate and b) don't mind reading (it's a lot of text) and enjoying a complex story with complex character interactions. Remastered version available)

---

• Half-Life 1+2 (instead of HL1, play "Black Mesa" which is a great modern remake (not the same, but very similar and much better nowadays). For HL2, there are also some remastered versions or mods available, and Valve updated the game engine from time to time so when you download it today, it's not the dated version from 2004 anymore). HL1 (1998) was one of the first FPS with a really great story line, voice acting, and stuff like that, which is why it pushed boundaries back when it was released. HL2 was just excellent overall and one of the first or the first game which introduced physics-based object manipulations, so it again pushed boundaries further)

---

• Sin Gold was a great FPS from 1998 that got brutally overshadowed by Half-Life 1, but it's still a great story-based shooter, more action-focused. Based on an updated Quake 1 engine.

---

• Portal 1+2. Best to play them after you've played the Half-Lifes. Portal 2 (2012) is THE highest rated game on Steam (https://steamdb.info/stats/gameratings/). Truly great puzzle FPS set in Half-Life's setting, which is why it's useful to know about HL before jumping in (but not a requirement). Portal 1 also isn't far off in rating. Portal 1 was basically a "side game" for the Valve game compilation named The Orange Box, Portal 2 was then a true AAA quality followup because Portal 1 was a huge success.

---

• Deus Ex 1 (maybe. Graphics are really poor (they were already dated when it launched). But it was one of the first RPG-FPS with stellar level design and the freedom to approach every situation in different ways, so VERY good on the gameplay side). Deus Ex 2 is supposedly bad, so skip that. The newer ones like Human Revolution and Mankind Divided are decent but they're not classics anymore they're still """fairly recent""", around 2010 or so.

---

• System Shock 2. It also looks very dated by now but there are some HQ mods available (improving models and textures) which make it more bearable. I'm hesitant to mention it because it relies a lot on immersion and it looks very dated. So according to my own recommendations, I probably shouldn't list it, but it's also great in level design and gameplay, and its art style never was ultra-realistic to begin with, so I'll list this one as an exception. It's very much worth playing, truly a great sci-fi/horror RPG-FPS and a worthy successor to part 1. Nightdive Studios might be working on an SS2 Remake or Remaster, if so then I'd say wait for that!

---

• Monkey Island 1 + 2. Remasters available. Classic point-and-click adventures, timeless.
• There are even more great adventure games from LucasArts or Sierra back in the day, but you'll have to figure them out for yourself. I will only recommend Monkey Island because they were probably the most successful and well-known ones. For some of them, remasters are available, or you can play them using ScummVM. There were also other great adventures not from LucasArts or Sierra, like Simon the Sorcerer. The 80s, 90s and early 2000s spawned a lot of great point+click adventure games.

---

• Diablo 2 (remaster available). D1 started the whole "genre" of hack&slay action RPGs but it's rather poor in comparison and aged terribly, D2 is much better in all areas, so skip D1 and instead try D2.

---

• Z (very unique and fun RTS game from the 90s. If you haven't played it, you should! It offers very good and unique gameplay that no one else really tried to copy as far as I know, which is a shame. It truly emphasizes unit production time, speed and good timing). It's also entertaining. And difficult.

---

• Thief Gold + Thief 2 (remasters available I think, but even if not, despite the graphics being very dated, a lot of it is in shadows anyway and IMHO the general art style kind of ages well, though that may be subjective, and it's also immersion-based, so YMMV, but I think it's fine still). Also "The Dark Mod" as a community "continuation" of the series). If you like stealth FPS, you must play them. Thief 3 is also decent. Any Thiefs after that are terrible. There are amazing community-made mods/missions as well.

---

• Alien: Isolation. This one is from 2012 I believe, so not quite old, but an honorable mention because it's also an amazing stealth-based game. Its art style (like the first movies) also makes it age better. In fact I'd say this is one of the best horror-based stealth games ever made.

---

• Heroes of Might & Magic 3 (I think in this case, the remaster is bad. Stick to community mods/patches). This one is still the best of the series, so you don't need to play any other part. Ages very well because it has very beautiful 2D-based graphics. Great art and design overall.

---

• There was one old RPG which supposedly aged very well but I didn't play it yet. Maybe Albion or Lands of Lore, not sure what it was.

---

• Tomb Raider 1-3 (remaster)

---

• WH40k Dawn of War 1 is great if you like the universe and RTS games in general. Also the best in the series.

---

• XIII (Thirteen) - but not the new remake, play the original. It's a rather unique stealth-based, comic-look based FPS. Ages quite well because of its unique look (utilizes the kind of shading like Borderlands)

---

• Elder Scrolls 3-5 are very good as well but you need several mods or engine enhancements, otherwise graphics aren't that good anymore, and these are games which rely on good graphics as well for atmosphere/immersion. So they don't age well by default, but thankfully they have a VERY active modding community which keeps these games alive. You can even make them look very modern, but it takes time and effort to do so.

---

• Nethack (somewhat of a nerd game, terrible graphics by design (text-based art style), but amazing and very deep/complex gameplay, very rewarding to get into, if you don't mind its presentation. In terms of gameplay depth it brutally outclasses most games on the market). There are also some other clones like Slash'Em which I didn't play. Dwarf Fortress is probably similar in depth and presentation (but very different in gameplay and general type of game) but I also didn't play it yet. If you know enough about Nethack it's also not that hard, but getting to that point is very difficult and if you don't know anything then it's very difficult. (I've done 8 ascensions, i.e. 8 finished playthroughs).

---

• Honorable mention because it's technically not old but looks old: Return of the Obra Dinn. Don't skip this one, it's one of the best games I've ever played, I'm not kidding. It's truly amazing, and it's made by 1 guy. It's a perfect example of why graphics fidelity in games doesn't matter that much and you can create excellent, modern-feeling, stylish games regardless.

Let's say you want to compile and install a program for yourself from its source code form. There's generally a lot of choice here:

You could (theoretically) use / as its installation prefix, meaning its binaries would then probably go underneath /bin, its libraries underneath /lib, its asset files underneath /share, and so on. But that would be terrible because it would go against all conventions. Conventions (FHS etc.) state that the more "important" a program is, the closer it should be to the root of the filesystem ("/"). Meaning, /bin would be reserved for core system utilities, not any graphical end user applications.

You could also use /usr as installation prefix, in which case it would go into /usr/bin, /usr/lib, /usr/share, etc... but that's also a terrible idea, because your package manager respectively the package maintainers of the packages you install from your distribution use that as their installation prefix. Everything underneath /usr (except /usr/local) is under the "administration" of your distro's packages and package manager and so you should never put other stuff there.

/usr/local is the exception. It's where it's safe to put any other stuff. Then there's also /opt. Both are similar. Underneath /usr/local, a program would be traditionally split up based on file type - binaries would go into /usr/local/bin, etc. - everything's split up. But as long as you made a package out of the installation, your package manager knows what files belong to this program, so not a big deal. It would be a big deal if you installed it without a package manager though - then you'd probably be unable to find any of the installed files when you want to remove them. /opt is different in that regard - here, everything is underneath /opt//, so all files belonging to a program can easily be found. As a downside, you'd always have to add /opt// to your $PATH if you want to run the program's executable directly from the commandline. So /opt behaves similar to C:\Program Files\ on Windows. The other locations are meant to be more Unix-style and split up each program's files. But everything in the filesystem is a convention, not a hard and fast rule, you could always change everything. But it's not recommended.

Another option altogether is to just install it on a per-user basis into your $HOME somewhere, probably underneath ~/.local/ as an installation prefix. Then you'd have binaries in ~/.local/bin/ (which is also where I place any self-writtten scripts and small single scripts/executables), etc. Using a hidden directory like .local also means you won't clutter your home directory visually so much. Also, ~/.local/share, ~/.local/state and so on are already defined by the XDG FreeDesktop standards anyway, so using ~/.local is a great idea for installing stuff for your user only.

Hope that helps clear up some confusion. But it's still confusing overall because the FHS is a historically grown standard and the Unix filesystem tree isn't really 100% rational or well-thought out. It's a historically grown thing. Modern Linux applications and packaging strategies do mitigate some of its problems and try to make things more consistent (e.g. by symlinking /bin to /usr/bin and so on), but there are still several issues left over. And then you have 3rd party applications installed via standalone scripts doing what they want anyway. It's a bit messy but if you follow some basic conventions and sane advice then it's only slightly messy. Always try to find and prefer packages built for your distribution for installing new software, or distro-independent packages like Flatpaks. Only as a last resort you should run "installer scripts" which do random things without your package manager knowing about anything they install. Such installer scripts are the usual reason why things become messy or even break. And if you build software yourself, always try to create a package out of it for your distribution, and then install that package using your package manager, so that your package manager knows about it and you can easily remove or update it later.

What she (and other climate activists) have done and do is spread awareness about this issue. As you can imagine, it's important to keep important topics (arguably even the most important topic humanity faces, yes even more important than soccer (lol)) present in media and in people's heads for them to not be forgotten soon after again. People need to be constantly reminded that our current way of life currently destroys our planet, especially considering that not much happened to steer against this problem within the last couple of years after the Paris agreement. And we don't even know many of the tipping points that could accelerate disaster even further. When some ecosystems stop existing and food chains become disrupted, for example.

In a way, she's like a PR person for the most important topic in science currently. And she (and other climate actrivists) is successful at it, considering it's so often in the news and so many of the polluters hate her and try to discredit her and others.

Always remember though: it's about the problem, not specific people. Of course we like talking about people, and the media does it as well, but as the saying goes, "small minds discuss people, great minds discuss ideas". It's about the problem at hand, irrelevant of Greta or other activists. She's just trying to bring the point across to a mass audience, that's all. We (as in: the whole humanity, no exceptions) need to take action against the problem, not talk about Greta. This "ad hominem" strategy is sometimes deliberately used as a distraction away from the issue at hand. When articles talk about Greta or try to discredit her or whatever, then the debate is shifted away from the actual problem at hand. Even articles about her in a positive light are, in the end, irrelevant. It's not about her, or other climate activists. She even says that herself. If the activists didn't exist, we'd still face the exact same problem.

Yeah, but a sizeable increase is still very important. These days, Mastodon, Lemmy and so on have decently sized communities everywhere so that you don't feel like just talking to yourself and a couple of friends anymore. And that's kind of a tipping point.

"Mass migrations" happen slowly, anyway. A lot of people are very hesitant to leave big social hubs just because of the value there is in having so many people around. But in the end, you have to. We can't stay on these proprietary social networks forever. Social networks and communication channels in general need to be non-proprietary, decentralized and open, without the ability of companies manipulating what you see and don't see. And without risk of losing everything when the one big company falls. It's a fundamental problem of all proprietary social networks.

Why should I downgrade?

Apple's stuff is:

• Locked down hard, meaning you get completely vendor-locked-in, and you can't install alternative OS (there is none I think) or even apps from different sources without voiding warranty or using unsupported, unreliable hacks like jailbreaks for specific models.
• Privacy-invading. Sure, not as bad as proprietary Android distros, but still far from privacy-respecting
• Account-bound. Everything is tied to your Apple account. To even set up or use the product you need an account.
• As proprietary and closed source as it gets
• Ridiculously overpriced, so very low value for the money
• The company is known for its anti-competitive and monopolistic, even mafia-style behavior (e.g. when insisting on their 30% cut for all apps, insisting that apps use the in-app-purchasing system and not allowing "subscriptions from outside of Apple's ecosystem", stuff like that. If app developers don't comply with ridiculous rules, they get their apps taken down, and since the AppStore is the only source for apps, this means they have 100% control and can kill any app which they don't like or which they perceive as competition for Apple's own apps.

Use GrapheneOS. It's a secure, fully privacy-respecting open source distro of Android (based on the open source Android) without any Google services/apps by default, but with full Android app compatibility.

Already did. Purged all my Reddit bookmarks and account.

Generally: You have to be the change you want to see in the world. If you want to change others, change yourself first. I don't think the mindset "I need to reach that big number of people over there so I'll just be over there as well to teach them" works, or leads to the goal you want. Even though it seems reasonable at first glance. This mindset just leads to you giving the other people AND yourself more reason to never leave from there. Which is contrary to what you want. If you want others to switch to better alternatives, move yourself first, help grow the alternatives, and they will sooner or later also become interested in joining. Things like the latest Reddit and Twitter fiascos also show that no huge proprietary social media platform rules forever. The time to change to better alternatives has never been better than now.