Almost as many, but not more than :)

Fewer than 50% voted for it, which means more than that voted against it.

Every artist is capable of drawing CSAM. Every 3D modeler can render CSAM. Ban all computers !!

Well every human can be an artist with some training. I guess the solution is to ban humans.

And the artist is punished for doing so. Thank you for proving my point.

But we don't ban pencils do we?

This genuinely does not read like a real post.

Actually read like one of those AI-fueled cringe LinkedIn post.

If you software is not being distributed by that distribution and is using some external download tool, it is inherently not supported and the only way to make sure it works is to compile from source.

If you compile from source, but your distro is shipping library version that is incompatible with the app, you're still screwed.

This is why flatpaks/snaps/app images have been taking off. Devs don't have time for bugs caused by incompatible libraries. Distro packagers don't have time to properly test the thousands of packages they have to change to satisfy their 1 shared library version policy.

The bottom one is suspicious because it is bigger !!!!!

Explain to me why I should want an electric car?

Low maintenance costs, cheaper operational cost (depending on electric rates).

Some of them are quite peppy too. My Leaf isn't but it meets the criteria I just gave.

capitalism is great just don't ask the natives about it

Communism always implies death and destruction, capitalism does not. I am not saying that capitalism and its associated governments always result in perfect or even good outcomes, but that communism always results in bad ones. And either way, the natives were wiped out by governments under mercantilism, not capitalism.

what part of the communist ethos implies death and destruction? really it seems more baked in to capitalism and democracy is the more important piece rather than the economic system... a socialist system can be democratic too

Communism requires an authoritarian government. Authoritarian governments bring death and destruction. Therefore, any communist society will inevitably have death and destruction.

> Communism and its associated pairings have killed far more than capitalism ever will.

Ever will? The "capitalists" have already killed far more. Did communists wipe out a continent full of native americans? Did communists killed more people than the Nazi germany, the US, british empire, chinese empire, japanese, etc in ww2? Did communists kill more people during both the vietnam wars?

> Communism only ever exists when paired with an authoritarian government and cannot exist without one. Capitalism can (and does) exist without an authoritarian government.

Fine, that's an actual argument that can be discussed. But why lie outright about reality. But pretty sure the natives would have loved to live under their own authoritarian government rather than being wiped out by the capitalist paradise.

> There is a reason why the only people that defend communism have never lived under it.

Must be why you are so good at lying. Because you grew up under communism?

Capitalism did not kill the natives, the colonial governments and other European governments did. Communism implies evil/bad/death, but capitalism does not. And even then, the "system" in place at the time was mercantilism, not capitalism. For your last argument, you do not need to be Gordon Ramsay to know when something tastes bad. Once again, growing up under communism implies with 99% certainty that you do not want communism. It is an implication, not a bi-implication.

Corporate capitalism largely started colonization. Most of the English-speaking colonization of America was started by companies like the Virginia Company, the Massachusetts Bay Company, etc. Most of India was conquered by the British East India company before it turned over its holdings to the British government. The Congo Free State was the personal property of the King of Belgium, not part of or governed by Belgium, for the exploitation of companies he had interests in.

> Capitalism did not kill the natives, the colonial governments and other European governments did

Then neither did communism. The governments did.

> And even then, the "system" in place at the time was mercantilism, not capitalism.

Sure. Just like the soviet union, china, north korea, etc are not true communists. Idiots on both sides always make the same excuses.

> Once again, growing up under communism implies with 99% certainty that you do not want communism.

If that were the case, a certain percentage of the world wouldn't have had to spent trillions to undermine and overthrow communism.

> It is an implication, not a bi-implication.

Morons on both sides love to throw around logic terms they don't understand to buttress their shitty argument. That and silly statistics. 99% certainty. Good one.

Well capitalism does not always mean bad, but communism does. Therefore, one is objectively worse than the other.

I mean, you are the one arguing that they were erased from the map when clearly they were not. And either way, to say that millions of Americans should have died to invade a country that sided with the Nazis and killed bajillions of Chinese and Koreans unjustly is simply incorrect.

The free market should be used to benefit $my_country and should be ignored if it hurts my interests. If the free market is hurting my country, then why play by those rules when I can just use my other resources to get what I want?

Fuck the country, I want competition for myself. My neighbor getting rich doesn't benefit me at all; and having to buy his crap makes my life worse.

I wish there was a CD rip of the encyclopedia available so I could comb through the rest.