I think the problem with packaging isn’t so much that there aren’t good options. Some people don’t like Flatpak. Some people don’t like snaps. Maybe AppImage would be a good option. But these are all choices that can potentially fragment the target demographic even further, which reduces the value returned for the time invested in supporting it. Just my opinion, certainly not an expert.

Wine is a great solution for windows-only things. The great thing about gaming, though, is that many of them are using languages like C++ which have full support on Linux systems natively. If you then have your graphics running through Vulkan, that also works across platforms. So, in my opinion, Wine shouldn’t be something we continue to need for gaming. Not saying Wine won’t be used or won’t continue to be useful for gaming, just that it doesn’t have to be the primary path to support Linux.

Are Linux ports of games so hard to do? Genuine question. I am not a games dev.

My personal opinion is that Windows is an easier target because all Windows machines are consistent in their underlying interface with the user’s hardware. Same idea with MacOS. You know what display manager and graphics library to target, and what packaging format to target.

Then, there’s Linux, which can be one of any number of distributions with varying software stacks, packaging formats, etc. It’s not that Linux gaming is radically difficult to support, it’s just much less standardized. This makes it a lot more work for a much smaller demographic. The Vulkan graphics API has made some of the software issues much less of a problem, but you still have to contend with things like different display managers and stuff like packaging differences between distributions.

The article says what he’s doing is clearly illegal, and backs it up with the law that he’s violating. He’s offering, through a lottery, a chance to receive payment in order to incentivize people to register to vote. CAH is probably treading close to the line, but I can’t say it’s clearly illegal. What Musk is described as doing seems to be pretty clearly illegal, to me.

Whoever knowingly or willfully gives false information as to his name, address or period of residence in the voting district for the purpose of establishing his eligibility to register or vote, or conspires with another individual for the purpose of encouraging his false registration to vote or illegal voting, or pays or offers to pay or accepts payment either for registration to vote or for voting shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both

Can you explain why you don’t seem to think what Musk is doing is illegal?

Again, you’re still arguing from the standpoint that I’m making fun of her natural eyebrows.

Which I’m not.

You’re attacking appearances. How one dresses or applies makeup doesn’t matter in the context of the conversation. These are are matters of personal taste. Why do we need to know your thoughts on this?

I’m making fun of her shallow decision making and poor choices.

Not really, though. You’re just talking about how someone’s personal taste doesn’t align with your personal taste. This is like arguing about favorite colors. It’s a weak position to argue as it’s entirely subjective. It actively undermines any other argument you might be trying to make.

Of all the things to mention, and you’re focused on eyebrows? You sound extremely biased because of this weak argument. It gives the impression that you share this same quality of being shallow. It serves as a potential indicator that you might be unable to pick out relevant detail in a conversation, which also makes you seem like a waste of time to communicate with.

If you’re arguing another point this is detracting from that point. If you’re not arguing another point, then this insipid opinion is irrelevant to the discussion.

I appreciated your rant. I don’t really know what I’m talking about, so take this all with a grain of salt.

What you’re sort of describing sounds like a boycott of our capitalist system. In theory, if we all could be self-sustainable and didn’t need to participate in the current system just to survive, then I think it would collapse. How could it not? The billionaires are billionaires because we give up our time and labor for currency which we then reinvest in a system which transfers most of that currency to a select few at the top. If we all stopped participating where would the billionaires get their billions, and what would they even spend it on, if not our labor or products produced by our labor?

I can only speak for where I live but this kind of organizational boycott of the system isn’t really likely to happen anytime soon. It’s too difficult to organize that number of people into non-participation especially when there are not really any alternatives. It’s not even easy to get people to give up listening to a certain artist’s music if they’ve done a terrible thing. People are living shitty or difficult lives and need their creature comforts just to mentally get by. I don’t blame them. There would have to be a viable, functioning alternative already in place which could absorb the needs of a massive number of people. It would take cooperation and compassion, and I guess I just don’t see that in the cards.

Even if we did, how long would it last until the power hungry manipulated their way into building another version of the same system?