You mean after trying this preview release of Xfwl4?

From my perspective, someone declaring being familiar with and trusting a youtuber when posting their link does not appear to provide a terribly useful function, or add any positive signals.

To elaborate; If I am unfamiliar with a poster, their opinion is practically irrelevant, as I do not know their level of competency in the subject they are posting, their critical thinking ability, their research skills, nor their biases. If I find the subject interesting enough to click, I will still need to determine its merit through my own analysis.

If I am already familiar with a poster themselves and they have shown a history of posting good quality links, then declaring they trust a specific youtuber is now irrelevant for me, since I can already assume the poster is continuing their trend of sharing high quality information.

If someone added "I know this youtuber, he's legit" to their post body, and that altered my perception of whether the video is worth watching or how on-guard I need to be with the information presented without being familiar with the poster at all, then that would, in my opinion, just indicate that I am susceptible to the power of suggestion. You would ultimately still need to determine the worth of the argument on your own, or defer to someone else doing that legwork, if they take the time to present a compelling case.

I do not think it unreasonable to expect others to determine for themselves the merits of a link I post.

I do think it unreasonable to expect someone to do a deep dive on every source referenced in a video and present their findings to a perspective watcher. If that was the standard we adopted here, it would absolutely have a chilling effect on people's incentive or inclination to post anything at all.

I'm familiar with the youtuber and find him to be a pretty trustworthy science explainer, and he does acknowledge that one of the studies has a conflict of interest, but it appears to be in line with other studies that do not have that conflict (though he probably would've been better off not including biased studies at all).

But I am a rando on the internet, so my vouching for him to be fairly trust-worthy should not hold much weight. Ultimately people will need to take a look at the studies and determine for themselves if the youtuber is coming to a solid conclusion based on his arguments and interpretation of the data.

If you are concerned about potential misinformation being spread, then, if you happen to have the time and inclination, you yourself could investigate each source and its trustworthiness, watch the video, and come to your own conclusion as to the veracity of the youtuber's conclusion, and then detail your own conclusion in a comment here.

The video makes its conclusion based on 8 studies from different sources, I can't list each one in the title. You can look at them here if you'd rather not look at the video:

The point was who is the source of the youtube video first

The youtube channel's name is in the title: Just Have a Think.

The rest of your comment is suggesting I should personally write up a rather compelling case for both the sources and the youtuber himself before it's worth considering watching the content itself, which would in effect be repeating all of the information in the video itself. That is a time investment I am personally not willing to do, but I would certainly welcome anyone else with the inclination to do so.

Could you explain how Shelly does checks on AUR packages? I can't find where it mentions doing so on its website, and even in its documentation is says:

Enable AUR - Allows access to the AUR download features, these packages are managed by individual users so access at your own risk

How does Shelly make using the AUR safe for people who do are not able to effectively investigate the install scripts themselves?

Regarding permissions, I highly recommend the use of Flatseal, which is a very polished GUI program that lets you adjust the permissions of any flatpak individually, quite similar to how Android does it.

They are certainly still better than ICE vehicles, but it could be argued the climate situation is so dire, a 20% reduction is inadequate compared to the more substantial reductions of pure EVs (though even then, we really shouldn't be trying to replace the world's cars 1 to 1 with EV cars, but instead transition to public transport as much as possible, with EV's being useful for areas where public transport may not be viable).

Stick with verified flatpaks on flathub (they also host unverified packages, avoid those), and Appimages directly from the software maker's site, if they offer them.

The Gnome Software Store and the Mint software store both have the option to not show unverified flatpaks, which I would suggest using.

Plug-in hybrids can reduce emissions if mostly used for short urban trips, and hybrids can use less gas overall compared to regular ICE vehicles since they tend to use small engines, but the study suggests that the people who use plug-in hybrids like they're intended (i.e, plugging it in frequently to avoid the engine turning on) is a minority of users, unfortunately.

Because it looks like this whole requirements thing is pure marketing, and studios needing to keep selling: “Look, shinier graphics that will make the previous generation of games you loved and found incredibly sharp and detailed when theé came out look mild and of bad quality now!”

This is exactly what's happening. Its been going on for a long time, and is in some ways holding back the industry from progressing in other areas, such as new and innovative forms of actually interacting with game worlds and their narratives.

I'd personally say once 3D graphics were able to represent things without it looking abstract from too few polygons (say, around 2006 or so?), the medium could've slowed down the pace of graphical advancements significantly, and the industry would've benefited enormously.

Modern indie games that do not have AAA budgets for graphics instead have focused on unique and attractive art-styles, sometimes with retro aesthetics, and are generally able to create far more compelling experiences due to the lack of emphasis on graphics.

The studies appear to show that regular, non-plugin hybrids are even worse at lowering emissions than the poorly utilized PHEVs :\

Overall it seems to suggest that hybrids aren't a terribly good solution for lowering emissions overall, since only PHEV's have the capability to drastically lower them, but only for a minority who are mindful enough to take advantage of that ability.

Per the study, most owners of hybrids are not effectively utilizing their hybrids in ways that actually drastically reduce carbon emissions, only a minority do.

As I say, you appear to be in the minority by being mindful of plugging it in regularly.

Worse than something people don’t utilize? Im calling bullshit.

A regular hybrid is always using its ICE to charge its battery. A PHEV can either charge via the grid, or with its ICE.

The minority of people who do opt to mostly charge their PHEV via the grid and do not constantly take long distance trips are able to fully utilize a PHEV's advantages, and thus they help bring the overall average down for the PHEV category, but since there are so many more who do not, the average is still quite poor despite PHEVs having the real potential to be much better.

a non-PHEV hybrid, by not having the grid as an option, does not have the benefit of that mindful minority of people helping to bring the average down as much, thus it is worse than PHEV, but still better than ICE.

A regular hybrid still generally have reducd emissions compared to an ICE vehicle if used in an urban setting, and due to how small their ICE engines tend to be, they usually use less fuel even on long-distance trips compared to the average ICE vehicle.

The point of the study is not that they don't emit less than ICE vehicles, it is that, overall, due to how most people use them, they don't save all that much carbon over their lifetime compared to non-hybrid EVs (which, I will mention, also pale in comparison to public transport). And in the case of PHEV's, they could be used to great effect, but the majority of buyers appear to not do so, thus making them similar in carbon reduction to regular hybrids.

If you would rather not watch the video itself which goes over the studies and their conclusions, the creator provided sources to all the studies in the text description, which I will provide here for you to look through:

tl;dw: Despite being cleared by the FCC to sell in the US, Netgear routers have a backdoor from the factory that is constantly listening for the correct SSH key, allowing anyone with it to infiltrate your network (likely for three letter agencies to use). Virtually all consumer router manufacturers have extremely poor security practices, but one way of combating this for now is to make your own router with something like OPNSense.

They also discuss the direction all of this is heading in, taking into account the new laws being proposed around the world trying to attach your identity to your device to remove anonymity, they suspect that eventually ISPs and governments may mandate the use of approved locked-down routers or wireless access points that have those backdoors in place, both for easier government surveillance and for the benefit of corporations, who would prefer to remove anonymity to access and gather more valuable user data to create more in-depth profiles for selling to advertisers, and to limit the user’s ability to block certain devices from accessing the internet, like modern TV’s that send screenshots every 3 minutes to the manufacturer to help identify what you’re watching.

Orwell fought in a Marxist militia (the POUM) during the Spanish Civil War against Franco's fascists, and got a bullet to the neck for it. He then had to quickly flee Spain while still recovering from the wound when the Stalinist Marxist-Leninist faction turned on both the Marxists and the Anarchists, and began to round them up for imprisonment or execution, justifying the betrayal by calling them 'secret fascists' that were somehow collaborating with the enemy (which was obviously absurd).

That event fully soured Orwell on Marxist-Leninist authoritarian communism, inspiring both Animal Farm and 1984, as well as motivating him to make that list of 'communists' which he thought sympathetic to authoritarianism and the USSR. I can't say I would've made that same choice, but I can certainly understand why he would've wanted to prevent USSR collaborators from gaining more power after what he'd directly experienced.

Saying that, as with most figures of that time, he also had some pretty fucking bad takes, such as being pretty homophobic and antisemitic, and may have included some people on that list for being either of those things (he also possibly could've written that list while pretty deluded with advanced tuberculosis, as some later figures have postulated). That's not to say we should throw out the baby with the bath-water, otherwise we'd also have to dismiss the entire works of most historical figures, such as Bakunin (Antisemite, racist) or Marx (Antisemite, Racist), and certainly Engels (Racist, Antisemite) instead of sifting the good from the bad (though Engels in particular has little to offer, other than justifications for authoritarianism).

Heck yeah :)

Also, I just need to mention that you have a fantastic username.

At this point, if Israel was a nation in a civ game, their perks would be no civilian unhappiness penalty for annexing foreign cities, and negative opinion from other leaders for warmongering reduced by 90%.

Well said, Quill. :)