He deleted his account and then came back on here to get angry? Why?

Was it? What happened to 8bit? Did he get banned or something?

Unity is such a strange DE. Not to say it's bad, because get used to any DE/WM and you'll come to understand it. I just find it far more confusing than Windows or OSX, which isn't a good way of getting more people into Linux, which is Canonical's goal.

Do you use Windows? Then use Mint.

Ubuntu is an answer to a question that never really existed, which is, "How do we make a Linux brand that is different from the two other major OSes?"

Not to say there's anything (majorly) wrong with Ubuntu. It's just that the point of Linux is that you can make it whatever you want it to be. So the best method of selling Linux would be to show Windows and OSX users that they don't have to feel like a stranger using their computer if they switch to Linux.

And for people like me, you can throw in Arch Linux and build it from the ground up with XMonad and the barest of essentials.

Except it wasn't based on white people. There was a white person as an example image, with the color blocks underneath and to the sides of her used for real color balance.

The white person was a reference for each individual photographer and developer to look at if they so desired, but only an idiot would think that this actually affected anyone other than amateurs.

So please, respond sarcastically again dismissing my entire argument, as it's fairly obvious you already have an agenda that this video somehow illustrates.

How anyone looks at photography, where light is the key factor in capturing an image, and then posits that technology itself is racist because it has trouble accurately capturing the skin tones of dark-skinned people, is just bonkers to me.

Cameras capture light, and that's it. It's the job of the photographer or cinematographer to ensure that a black actor or model is lit properly under certain conditions.

Not to mention, the photographic process does not begin and end with light hitting film, and the claim that seems to be thrown about by this video that black people existed in color photos only as negative blobs of obscure darkness is just pure lunacy. Go look at any color photos from the time period described, and you'll see perfect photos of dark-skinned people all over the place.

I mean, what are they even trying to say with this? That black people are underrepresented in photography out of a nefarious plot to keep them underexposed, both literally and figuratively? And if they're not saying that, then what are they saying? Black people are harder to take photos of? This is not news! It's logical, common sense!

Furthermore, let me just say again that positing that technology itself can have a racial bias is just pure insanity.

I think the main problem comes from the idea that, as time goes on, we develop technology that basically allows this sprawling mass of interconnected devices to "wake up". Being intelligent beyond the means that a human could, I'd imagine it'd quickly learn how to consecrate technology would it be given access to a network.

But this is science fiction at this point. There's far too many variables to come up with a real idea of what an AI would be capable of with some sort of hyperintelligence. The best we can do is accept that, at some point, there has to be a computer that is, for all intents and purposes, some type of superior intelligence to humans, right?

Go is the greatest game ever made. No other game can provide such effortless flexibility and fun in such simple rules.

I play all the time on DGS and try and show everyone I can this wonderful game. The only thing that sucks is that you're gonna lose again and again until you finally start to understand how to not lose, so it's hard to keep people playing unless they absolutely want to get better at the game.

The only real reason to not upgrade to 10 is either ideological or political, pretty much.

The points presented are sort of erratic, and really the best thing to tell anyone not sure about upgrading is not "7 is still fine, so stick with that!" It's, "Microsoft is a terrible company, and maybe you should try an alternative OS, preferably Linux."

I would agree with you if there wasn't already a functionality that works perfectly fine to get rid of opinions you dislike.

I don't think anyone wants to force you to listen to our opinions. After all, you can just as easily scroll past any post with my name on it and ignore it. I don't mind if you don't want to read my posts.

But again, why should you dictate what others are allowed to read? It's already made very easy for anyone to filter posters they dislike, so why take it a step further and filter posters so that other people can't filter them themselves?

I think Bernie Sanders understands that tackling racial equality is about as effective as fighting terrorism. They're abstract concepts that can't really be approached with a policy that will be effective in their goals.

The fact of the matter is, black people make up a disproportionate amount of poverty in America. The answer to helping black people is not posting #blacklivesmatter and trying to take down the Confederate flag from monuments. The answer is decriminalizing drugs, addressing income inequality which absolutely favors the rich (predominantly white men) while disadvantaging the poor (predominantly black men/women), and fixing systems that are currently broken.

Talking about race is all well and good, because it sheds light on issues that many would otherwise not know exist, but that's about all the good crying over race does. You have to look at what affects and hurts racial minorities, and address those issues, not some undefined "race issue".

Because they're allowed as much a say in the discussion as anyone else. It's up to each person whether or not they agree with their opinions, and I have no right to keep them from being heard. That's my point, that people are allowed to form their own opinions, and muting someone simply because you disagree with that opinion is just pathetic.

Again, if people can block and filter on their own, without any type of alteration to other users' experiences, then why is there any need at all for the mute button?

See, if this site had user-made forums, or personal blogs, then I'd be there with you. If it's your space, then you're allowed to say who comments on it. I might disagree with blocking, but it's your life.

But when you're a user posting political discourse or general discussion, what do you gain from keeping me from the conversation? Most posts on Hubski are links to off site articles. Why should they be allowed to keep my comments from being seen? They've essentially made the decision for every user on the site that I have nothing worthwhile to say, which is absolutely against what Hubski is about in the first place, namely self moderation. The point is that everyone is allowed to filter who they want, but they don't have a chance to even decide filtering me is worthwhile because someone else already said, "I disagree with you. You don't deserve to make a point."

I mean, hell, I wouldn't be able to have this discussion with you right now if the OP decided to mute me. How could anyone find this feature to be in any way fair in the spirit of Hubski?

I do not use and absolutely despise the mute button. If you can already filter people you dislike, and hide their comments, what then is the point of the mute button other than to silence people you dislike?

What about power users that are very popular? Should they be allowed to dictate who we hear from or not on their posts?

It's idiotic. Not only can people now inundate themselves with hugbox opinions that subscribe to their echo chamber, but they can curate their posts so only their confidantes and yes-men will post in response. Where's the discussion?

RSS updates from different news sites, since I don't need dedicated apps or a subscription from any of them. Plus I can get a few different sites so I'm not hearing one slanted piece from a biased source.

Well, no, I guess I wouldn't have clicked. But then isn't that just clickbait that you've created?

I'm just confused what the title is trying to elicit, I guess. Am I supposed to be angry at black men for stabbing liberal peace hippies?

Oh, please, this was about way more than sexism and racism on her part. She's not a victim, and even if the terrible decisions made by Reddit were not done by her hand alone or even at all, she knew what she was getting into stepping up as CEO of a company. Not to mention, many of her comments and subsequent actions were pure hypocrisy versus what Reddit championed back before rampant censorship and silencing became par for the course.

No one deserves to be attacked and threatened online, but that's just par for the course with literally any public figure. Let's not make her out to be some victim of angry racist misogynists when it's clearly obvious it's about more than that.

Why did you choose that as the title...? I thought maybe this was an Onion article until I checked the link.

God forbid that an opinion of the Confederate flag actually holds any type of sway in a political debate one day.

My opinion, when it comes to America at least, is that the Federal government should exist solely as an intermediary between state governments, as well as for international representation.

The CIA, NSA, DEA, and even FBI are pretty large abuses of power that simply consolidate power into the hands of small groups of people that exist in vacuums that keep them from understanding the will of the people.

I really hope Mozilla turns it around. It really sucks to see what was once king of the alternative browsers be slowly pushed more and more out of the market. They always campaigned for an open and transparent web, and always advocated for digital privacy.

I haven't liked the past few changes that they've made to Firefox as they attempted to be more Chrome-like, but I still genuinely support the browser in its efforts to continue with what it's always championed.

You could try cycling. Not only is it something you can use as a form of sporting/exercise, but you can also enjoy it as a simple activity out on the town or even a form of commuting.

I love riding my bike for leisure, and you can freely choose when you want to push yourself and when you'd rather cruise slow and enjoy the scenery.

I've been really into the idea of a trackball, recently. Something about it seems much more dextrous and just fun to use.

Do you think you can get as good accuracy with a trackball than you can with a mouse? My ideal situation would be getting good enough with it to play games.

I think people who mostly post have a very defined opinion that is probably not wont to change very easily, and so they post articles that either validate their opinions, or articles that they despise in the hopes of inciting discussion that is against said article.

But that's a huge generalization, of course. Just sort of what I've noticed, though.

I'm still of the opinion that Dark Souls is one of the greatest games ever made.

No game has done what Dark Souls did. No game has ever created such an experience that can only be achieved through pure gameplay, without pretense or want for something more.

I owe all my Linux experience and love to Crunchbang. It eases you into Linux by giving you just enough of a glimpse under the hood that you're able to mess around without worry of breaking much.

It'll always be dear to my heart.

The most fun language I've ever used was Erlang. Something about syntax with a period was interesting to me, and atoms are absolutely wonderful.

I need to learn Lisp. Mr. Stallman says so.

I started with Lubuntu before moving to Crunchbang. I wanted to use Arch immediately, and after practicing a bit I was able to get it to work, albeit the wifi was finicky. So I went with Crunchbang eventually and stuck with that for about a year. Once I heard the news Crunchbang was losing support, I took that as a sign that the time had come to switch over to Arch Linux like I'd always wanted to do.

The install isn't nearly as bad as people make it out to be. It's a little daunting at first having to physically build and make your own partitions and file systems, but once you're over the hump, it makes sense, and you have a completely empty system to build on top of.

After fiddling a while with getting xmonad and xmobar with custom scripts to display my wifi, volume, and battery levels, as well as showing the current artist and song through MPD while it's playing, I've finally got a computer that's completely my own, and runs lighter than anything else I could throw at it. All of that and the wonderful pacman package manager, and I couldn't want anything else.

Arch is a great distro, and I've yet to worry about any major breakages from any updates. Granted, if you're wanting to update your system once every few months, Arch probably isn't for you, as taking such a long time is liable to create some problems from broken dependencies. But if you're fine with throwing a quick pacman -Syu every few days to a week, you should be just fine.

You're saying you're fine with Google indiscriminately recording private conversations that you have in your own home?

I can sort of understand being okay with them knowing your online history (though even that shouldn't be allowed), but why would you be fine with them recording your conversations?