Nefyedardu

Why the snark? I literally used the term "comically heinous" myself to describe the examples. I am aware they are extreme, it was to demonstrate my point...

So we disagree on where that line should be drawn. And it comes down to the fact that you think blocking traffic is "mildly inconveniencing". I would say: how the fuck do you know? You don't know what's going on in the lives of those people.

• Maybe someone got a call from the hospital that their father is dying and they should come in to see them one last time.
• Maybe a food insecure parent is working hard to support their children and if they are late one more time they could get axed and put their children in danger.
• Maybe someone chopped their finger off and are rushing to the hospital to get it reattached.

Or any number of scenarios. If YOU were in any of these situations, what would you think of the people blocking the road? Somehow I don't think you would be so understanding when it happens to you personally.

But again, what way that hasn’t been tried would be ok in your book? Asking people nicely?

I think my position is clear. I'm OK with any form of protest that actually advances the cause behind the protest and I am not OK with any form of protest that is counter-productive against the cause of the protest. I started out my comments by saying what standing in a road accomplishes, and so far all you've really said is "uh, well nothing else has worked so why not?". That really isn't good enough.

They are bringing awareness to the cause

There are countless of ways to to that. I could bring awareness by killing puppies, burning down orphanages, or any number of comically heinous things. The more outlandish the better. So why stop at blocking traffic? Just do the most hateful, awful thing imaginable because "bringing awareness to the cause" is all that matters right? Obviously you have to draw the line somewhere. Not all forms of protest are just automagically valid and effective just from virtue of being protests.

That's why I protest by walking into people's homes when they are at work and shitting in their kitchen sinks. Then I leave a pamphlet explaining climate change next to it. They think about climate change while they clean it and change their voting patterns the next day I imagine.

Pro-publisher and pro-developer do not equal pro-consumer. In fact, Epic has never minced words that consumers are not their primary goal. "Developers will decide the game store wars, not consumers", remember? Tim Sweeney aaid that to justify not improving his store. I don't know about you, but in my view if Epic does not value my experience as a customer then I simply won't value them as a company. Is that not fair?

I just don't see the point. What is "consequential" about shutting down a road? What are you trying to achieve exactly? Are you doing it just because it's beneficial in and of itself? Shutting down one road out of the millions on Earth for like an hour does practically nothing and you should spend your time more wisely. Are you trying to win hearts and minds? People will do far more than just ignore your cause, they will actively despise it. Or is it just out of spite for commuters? Even though many of them, as you said, have limited means to change anything. Not everyone can afford to just quit their job to get one closer.

It's pro-publisher and pro-developer. What benefit does this give me as a consumer? I get to have fun watching Bobby Kotick and the other game studio execs buy a sixth yacht? Or are you trying to make an argument for trickle-down economics here?

Are you not reading your own comments? They all boil down to "WHY DON'T YOU GUYS LIKE EPIC?? PLEASE LIKE EPIC, PLEASE!". You come off as a serious fanboy that gets high off Tim Sweeney's farts, it's embarrassing. Even if Epic was paying you this isn't the kind of PR they'd appreciate my dude.

I got it the day it came out so it was the wild west. I think to get it to work on Arch I figured out you needed to compile the new llvm or something, and I just gave up at that point. Fedora Silverblue on the rawhide branch had everything for it, and as soon as 37 was caught up I just re-based on that branch and have been good ever since. Ubuntu did have some other issue I don't remember, not a new enough kernel maybe.

I love System 76 but I hate modified GNOME anything. That's why I always use Fedora. When Cosmic DE comes out I'll give it a shot.

The third party thing is outdated, you can enable it at install and have access to flathub and fusion repo. So installing Steam or Nvidia drivers is dead simple now. I would still say it's not great for new users because it's ultra minimal.

I realized Arch was overrated when I got a brand new 7900 XT and it didn't work on Arch at all because their LLVM was a version behind. It was up-to-date on Fedora and even Ubuntu, but not Arch. Then there was the whole broken grub thing. Bleeding edge and unstable I get, but you can't be unstable and also behind. You can run Arch in any distro with distrobox, I don't see why you wouldn't just do that.

Ubuntu has ads in the terminal when you update. Runs a highly modified GNOME that doesn't play well with some extensions. Snaps by default (although maybe not that bad now that they seem to launch a bit quicker). Unfortunately so many things only have Ubuntu support if they have Linux support at all, it's such a shame.

Doesn't matter if they have key resellers now, they were bitching and complaining about the Steam monopoly before they did so that image will hold true for all of time, forever. And I'm going to hate that stupid company for any reason I want, if that makes you mad then that's a you problem for being a free bootlicker to a faceless multibillion dollar corpo who doesn't give a fuck who you are.