oxomoxo

I haven't seen many references to Reason, and previous to this story I had not heard of them before. Most of the stories I am seeing are sourcing the mother. She seems to be doing a lot of interviews.

I never made claims regarding knowing the full story. Not sure anyone can know the full story until the other parties start talking. I was only responding to the claim that the story should be dismissed because of the source, and claims of what the sources motivations are.

I am supportive of reserving judgement for when more information comes out. I am just not supportive of jumping to the conclusion that because the linked article is from a questionable or biased source that it is automatically dismissed as fabrication and/or propaganda. Especially when there is so many organization who seem to be in defense of the mother.

As a middle aged father of two grown boys, one of the things I wish I had done better was encourage them to go out on their own more. Their mother would always be so worried, and knowing she has the best intention for them I would give in.

Also there was a couple of years when they were young I would try to force them to go outside and play, but they would quickly become bored and come back in the house. This was so frustrating at the time and then I realized that there were no other kids playing outside either. When I was growing up in the 80s and early 90s, I practically lived outside with my friends.

My boys are significantly more dependent on us, much less capable and their development seems stunted or slowed, which I am sure is partly due to the pandemic, but also due to the sheltering that has become normalized in our culture. Allowing this to happen is one of my biggest regrets as a father, which all things considered I guess isn’t that bad while keeping things in perspective.

I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that the abundance of information has a side effect of over protectiveness. This makes some sense as it would be evolutionarily beneficial to protect against potential threats, however media is tricking our brains to believe that these threats are both abundant and persistent.

Children need unsupervised freedom as part of their development, it allows them to learn how to navigate the world in a healthy regulated way, and how to deal with challenges, like problem solving or social interaction. The perception that the world is a dangerous place that children need constant protection from is flawed. If that were true, we would have never have survived as a species.

This is why you check the story against multiple sources. Just search “brittany patterson georgia” and you will find this has gone viral and there is tons of outrage over this.

Ah alright. My point is OP is asking what can be done in other distros that can’t be done in Mint and your answer was have the entire configuration be in plain text. I completely agree that if you want that kind of reproducibility NixOS is the most refined, well established, and best way to handle this. However to answer OP I would say this is possible in Mint but just much more painful.

Why not? Isn’t this the whole concept of Bash Script, Ansible, Terraform, etc… I mean it can be as simple as a git repo that pulls down an install script then syncs your dot files. What am I missing? If you’re referencing Nix, you can also have that on Mint.

I think this kind of thing is great. The policies and procedures that have been developed for the internet are going to have flaws. The internet was/is a new technology in the big picture. You can’t expect the first few drafts of how to run it to be perfect. There are going to be exceptions, edge cases and inconsistencies in any system designed to run indefinitely. This is a bug, IANA will turn it into a feature.

Read my many other replies. That’s not my point, not what I am saying. Maybe I said it poorly but I am saying that people don’t bother to learn about the people they are so offended for.

People are screaming racist about a guy who does this for over a decade as a living. This is a Tuesday for this guy, nothing new, nothing shocking. It’s like being offended that a butcher kills animals, it’s in the name, he tears people down for money.

The republican party does this shit daily, this isn’t even the worst thing that group has done this week. The difference is this comedian is paid to make this shit up while everyone else actually means it.

What I have a problem with is people being offended on behalf of the people of Puerto Rico, because it smells of fake virtue. Like when people are offended at school shootings but nothing changes. Because PR has been suffering for a century and no one in the US cares or even bothers to learn the fundamentals of their culture, like for instance that Puerto Rican is a nationality, not a race. A huge amount of Americans don’t even realize it’s a part of US and that they are citizens.

Yet a mediocre roast comic makes some inappropriate jokes and now it’s time to pay attention to PR. I don’t buy it, a month from now no one will remember and PR will continue to be the bastard step-child of the US.

To give more information, the word country is a generic term for Sovereign State.

Here is a list of Sovereign States. Which you will not find Puerto Rico listed as it own Sovereign State but rather it will be listed as an inhabited possession of one of the 13 unincorporated territories of the Sovereign State (country) United States of America.

What makes a country a country is the agreement of surrounding countries that a specific land is a country. No other country on Earth considers Puerto Rico a Sovereign State (country). It also is not considered contested, or controversial. It is globally accepted that Puerto Rico is not a country, nor has it ever been one, as before it's discovery by Spain it was part of early Taino tribes within the Caribbean islands and then forcefully colonized, before being given as a consolation to the United States by Spain in 1898.

When a citizen travels from Puerto Rico to Colombia what countries name is on their passport?

It depends on context, in the case of Puerto Rico it's an unincorporated territory of the United States and is designated as a Commonwealth. Since 1953 due to resolution 748 the United Nations classified PR as non-governing territory of the United States. Technically PR hold both a Nation state and Commonwealth state according to the US federal government, but the Commonwealth or Territory designation takes precedence over the Nation designation. This is simply because the United States Federal government decrees it, which is why the subject is controversial among Boricuas, as many people feel they should succeed from the United States, while others are happy to be a territory or commonwealth of the United States as many have assimilated into American culture.

So on paper Puerto Rico could be considered a country, but in practice, due to the over site and will of the US federal government, Puerto Rico is a unincorporated territory of US citizens, who don't have to pay federal taxes and have no representational within the rest of the United States, they can only effect their own internal governing body.

In many ways this is a travesty, but in other ways Puerto Ricans enjoy the protection of the US, both in defense and travel, as the US passport is very useful throughout the world, as well as economically due to the strength and stability of the dollar, without being constantly subjected to federal law.

Sorry to wake you, it's okay just go back to sleep.