Well, yes, except that those X11 developers agree that Wayland is better.

Notably absent: X11 developer saying Wayland is bad, not X11.

I think it’s just because some things have country-specific formats. For example, if you want to prefill credit card details, you have to figure out how the credit card fields are labelled.

Hehe, I can be more explicit: why would Chromium “resist” MV3 when the Chromium developers are the ones pushing it?

That’s like asking if I can resist reading a book. Sure I could, but I want to read a book - why would I resist?

Just wait until corporate finds out what the Dutch Krampus looks like 🙈

It’s a website rather than an app, but if you open it fullscreen, it’s just as much fun: https://hackertyper.com

I’m assuming you’ve already found it, but just in case you didn’t: Framework has setup guides for Fedora, which presumably should make everything work as intended. Find your device on this page, then click “Fedora 39 Setup Guide” on the right-hand side: https://frame.work/linux

I wouldn’t worry about it too much; there’s not really anything you need to do as a user anyway.

Well, then I’d highly suggest you just use Xfce and not worry about GNOME so much. Xfce hasn’t changed much in years.

they try to reinvent the desktop experience every 2 or 3 years

GNOME 3 was released 12 years ago, and hasn’t changed that much (unless you consider horizontal virtual workspaces are a major paradigm shift somehow).

Just use something else if you don’t like it; no one’s “pushing” anything on to you. Clearly, other people do like it.

Yeah the latter definitely sounds excessive. As for “no argument needed”, I can tell you that even if no argument is needed, that doesn’t mean that students won’t go for one :P

Slovakia, I don’t know, but the Netherlands not really. The one party that might want to veto it, while the biggest in parliament, only (“only”) got 20% of the votes. If they get to govern (which is not set in stone yet), they’ll have to do so in a coalition with other parties who would not let that happen.

Identifying the breach requires unanimity (excluding the state concerned), but sanctions require only a qualified majority.

Wait, how does this work? Can sanctions be instated without identifying a country as being in breach? Or is unanimity first required, and only after that, the majority can decide what the sanction is?

Phones now are a way more important part of people’s (and especially teenagers’) lives than they were back then. And they’re often also used to support lessons.

the rules for the 100% shouldn’t be made because 10% can’t self regulate.

Unfortunately that’s hard to avoid, because those 10% will disturb lessons and take up the teacher’s attention, thereby negatively affecting the other students.

Are the teachers supposed to do extra work to ensure no teen had a cell phone?

It’s way easier for a teacher to take away a phone that disturbs a lesson when there are not supposed to be phones in the first place, than have to argue about exceptions and limits to the rules every time.

I agree and sympathise with your overall philosophy, but I’m also conscious of the practical limits, unfortunately.

I guess the point of my argument isn’t about whether you should or shouldn’t condemn the specific action, but whether it should or should not be legal and, if not, what the punishment should be. That, at least, should be consistent, because the government response should be proportionate to the inconvenience, so if you believe your cause outweighs the inconvenience, then it should also outweight a proportionate response.

One especially helpful mental trick is to imagine you actually believe what someone you disagree with says that they believe. For example, I don’t believe that actual lizards control the country and systematically rape children, but if I did… Well, obviously that belief would justify quite a lot.

The test to see whether you agree with an argument like this, is imagining people protesting something you are vehemently in favour of. If you’d still agree with it then, then the logic holds.

“The browser chrome” is the name historically given to the parts of the browser that are not the website. Then Google created a web browser and decided to name it after it - but userChrome.css existed before the browser Chrome did :)

Good to hear, I hope that plays out!