The terminal commands have same idea and structure and apply to the entirety of your system. While it is still sometimes annoying to learn CLI commands of third-party apps (yes, I know of man, but it can be useless without examples at times), commands are generally the same for Linux systems and they cover everything.
Learning vim is like learning Linux terminal again, but for just one task of word processing in one specific application. Why?
With that being said, I’d rather solve most of my problems with GUI applications rather than go into a terminal. I can do stuff through terminal - I know basics of Linux/Unix commands - but just why? For most routine tasks, it is simply faster and easier to go with GUI, unless you are over SSH or just have a terminal-only instance, or unless you’re a sysadmin that does it 20 times each day and have muscle memory running in front of thinking what you wanna do.
I know how to update packages through terminal - the thing you demonstrate. But I can also press two buttons in app store and it will all be done for me, so why bother? (Also, you call it three steps, but it’s kinda two steps on Debian or other apt-based distros followed by one step in Arch and other pacman-enabled ones? I’m confused)
I’m certainly not gonna use terminal for word processing unless I absolutely have to. And for that, I’ll pick nano.
Linux has to get more user-friendly - and it does. Most people are not die-hard terminal fanatics and want to get their stuff done with minimal headache - and that’s where it goes and should go. Being vim elitist doubles down on that terminal philosophy that is alien to an average user. And we should not discourage any type of user to try Linux for as long as they are willing to figure truly necessary stuff out.
I guess someone can make use of this all, just not regular users. Besides, the controls are very legacy and it would make sense to make an updated version just to keep it more in line with tools people are used to and generally enhance user experience.
And that’s where I and most other Palestine supporters strongly disagree.
For starters, being attacked doesn’t allow the country to breach the international treaties on the law of war. Civilian massacre and “leveling of Gaza” is a grave breach of the treaties and a war crime, it should not be supported and Netanyahu and Israeli military officials are waited for in Hague, where they need to give quite an explanation for what they’ve done (and certainly get arrested).
Second, the attack on Israel was carried out by a small militant group, to which the majority of Palestinians barely holds any relation. About 200 people were taken as PoW. Israel’s response on that was unproportionate, with dozens of thousands of civilians killed, misplaced, and taken as PoWs. Regular people, people who did not attack Israel, are now finding themselves among one of the most cruel and lawless wars of the 21st century, with nobody able to protect them.
People of Palestine did not deserve this. They are civilians, and under the law of war, they should never be touched. There is a reason international community recognizes those rules, and Israel just decided to not give a damn. Israel is currently carrying more unnecessary, malicious violence and extermination than any other country on Earth.
As I said, under any circumstances, total war is not justified, and the international community has long formalized that. This conflict has shown how many people lack basic humanity to be able to universally recognize basic human rights long written in international laws and conventions.
For the appearance of XYZ we need a policy and cultural change, and for that we need to be very vocal about how stupid and inefficient cars are (i.e. hurr durr automobiles bad).
That’s entirely a matter of habit. There is nothing special about 0°F (random point in the cold range?) or 100°F points (random point in the hot range?), you’ve been lied to.
We don’t think -18°C to 38°C, we think -50°C to +50°C (regular Celsius weather thermometer, covers almost any temperature observed on Earth), with 0°C differentiating between snow/ice, “wintery” weather, and rain/mud, “non-wintery” one. That’s how we know whether to take umbrella (no point if it snows, hat is your best friend), what kind of shoes are the best fit - cold-resistant or highly waterproof - or which kind of jacket is gonna fit the situation. Melting point of water is actually incredibly important weather-wise and entirely ignored by Fahrenheit scale.
When it’s not winter, normal range is 0-40°C, with 20°C designating comfort temperature.
The reason we even care is that maintaining two systems is heavily impractical and adds to confusion all around the world - simply because 4% of world’s population can’t bother to make a change.
We wouldn’t care what you use - perfect barbecue temperature scale, length unit of football field, weights in blue whales - if it wouldn’t affect the rest 96% of the world who have to decipher your blubber.
Everyone uses Celsius and metric, make a damn switch, it’s not that hard and you won’t lose anything. You only use it because you’ve used to it, there is literally nothing else to it. Everyone switched, everyone’s happy with it. Do it already.
P.S. Also, Fahrenheit is currently officially defined through Celsius, as a scale that is at 32 degrees on melting point of water (0°C), and 212 degrees on its boiling point (100°C).
Fahrenheit’s hometown is certainly the metric everyone should use /s
Celsius is not arbitrary, it is based on objective physical reality, and the only arbitrary thing about it is atmospheric pressure, which is more or less equal on the sea level. The rest is us finding convenient patterns, not the other way around. 0-40 is not a scale, it’s an arbitrary range and adaptation of Celsius to subjective feelings of hot and cold - one that you ironically need for Fahrenheit, too. Actual thermometers normally go -50°C to +50°C.
On sub-zero, it is the same idea: -5°C is a weather for a light winter jacket, -15°C is a weather for a heavy winter jacket, -25°C is for heavy jacket and some pullover, etc etc.
The 0-40 argument demonstrates that we don’t need some arbitrary scale based on Fahrenheit’s recording in his hometown in order to conveniently estimate temperature. The groups for each dozen of degrees are just for easy reference. 17 degrees is optional for your taste, to me it’s light jacket weather in overcast or t-shirt weather when sunny. There are no perfect temperatures for anything and anyone, and it just doesn’t make sense to get into more detail.
As per granularity, people invented decimals, but normally it’s simply not necessary to tell the difference between 17°C and 18°C, let alone between 63°F and 64°F. There are so many factors influencing the temperature feeling, and one degree ain’t one.
Then you map it onto Celsius and see 32°F is 0°C, 71°F is 21,7°C and 100°F is 37,8°C.
Which coincides almost perfectly with the 0-20-40 framework we intuitively use in Celsius. 0 is deadly cold without warm clothes, 20 is warm, and 40 is deadly hot.
Turns out Celsius is good for weather, too. or it’s illuminati