Most community distros are small and based on something else; and that’s kinda the point. They’re not trying to be next big thing, it’s just a bunch of people with a common vision that come together to achieve what they need.
Debian and Arch are the exception, and, other than them, the only community distro that isn’t based on anything else that I can think of is Mageia.
Edit: OK, I forgot about Solus and Gentoo, but Solus is a zombie at the moment, and op asked for something easy.
I don’t mind adding forks to the list, or distros based on other distros, as long as the distro they’re based on is a community distro and not a corporate distro. Like you point out though, there aren’t a lot of those.
Pixel 6. Best phone I’ve owned. Takes great photos, is fast. Looks good. Very happy with it. Worst thing is I guess the fingerprint scanner, but honestly it’s such a minor gripe.
As a teenager or young adult, maybe. But as you grow older less so. Adding someone on social media has never really been brought up in my current social circles. Sure the occasional linkedin invite if it’s in a professional setting, but my current group of acquaintances hasn’t really thought about adding each other on every social media platform or exchanged contacts other than phone numbers.
I think at least with Christianity it would be similar of changing the everything orbiting the Earth to Earth orbiting the Sun. They'd just declare that it is all God's creation and be done with it.
You can't really prove negatives. Especially not when something is also constantly adapting and changing over the time. If anything it would use this very fact to disprove it, because it usually claims to be so absolute.
Sorry to disappoint you, but the only thing it disproves is that their creation myths aren't to be taken literally.
Actually, in the case of Judaism and Christianity, not even that. An accurate translation of the very first sentence in Genesis is in the perfect tense: "In the beginning, God had created the Heavens and the Earth." Only starting from the third verse does it switch into the narrative tense. As such, the Big Bang by itself wouldn't be sufficient evidence against taking the Judeo-Christian creation myth literally (obviously, other advances in science take over from there).
Sorry to disappoint you but they were taken literally by people in the Bible and religious leaders throughout history. If the creation myth didn’t literally happen there is no original sin. No original sin and no Easter miracle. No Easter miracle and as Paul himself noted there is no Christianity.
sighSomeone seems to be emotionally invested in believing it is this easy to disprove a religion.
Sorry for the rant I'm about to go on, but during my general linguistics studies I took Old Hebrew as one of my two required non-Indo-European languages. I eventually dropped/replaced it because it was less about the language than about the literature/theology, but some of that information is useful in discussions like this where people's views are just embarrassingly simplistic.
First of all, the Big Bang has no relevance to the original sin story. Genesis 1 (where the Big Bang does have relevance) is written in a different style from Genesis 2 (they use different words for God, for example). These were separate oral stories collated into 5 books. You can also see this in how Genesis 2 seems to retread part of what was already said in Genesis 1.
Second, the original sin story doesn't need to be completely literal, it only needs to convey a message. How exactly humanity got original sin and developed the concept of morality is irrelevant to the arguments and beliefs building on it. What is relevant is whether the results are true. Do you really think someone for whom this is part of their identity wouldn't just say "so what if it wasn't an actual fruit?" It's not even logically inconsistent.
Good thing you dropped Hebrew. Hey I took it as well. Do me a solid and read the part of the OT where the brothers are confronted by their father for massacring the town that circumcised themselves and explain the tense structure. The problem should just jump right out at you.
Your argument is that it isn’t relevant and that is your opinion not mine and not Paul’s.
Also, going from no original sin to no Easter is quite the logical leap. The only connection that story has with Easter is that Christians consider part of its ending to be one of several predictions of Easter.
Even the concept of original sin itself isn't a requirement for Easter. At best it's a warning to not think Easter is irrelevant to you because you are a good enough person on your own.
According to Paul Jesus needed to be killed and come back to life because of original sin. Original sin that entered the world via the literal Adam and Eve story. Maybe read the bible.
Pray tell, at which point did I claim any religion as my own? I just get annoyed when people use baby's first atheism to make simplistic claims they can't back up. As if it were that easy. In another branch of this comment tree you refer to a story way later in Genesis. As far as I can tell, the reference to that story was an appeal to emotions rather than logic. You could use it as a reason why someone might want to reject the religions that include it, but not to prove logically that those religions must be untrue. Do better.
Anyway, my point, that the level of literalness of the original sin story is irrelevant to the theology building off it, stands. What matters to people who believe in it is that it tells them about original sin, not whether or not a literal fruit and snake were involved.
Pray tell, at which point did I claim any religion as my own?
Very well. Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. You aren’t a Christian so it shouldn’t matter to you. After you do that I will address your post science rationalization that no theological school held until recently.
Christianity doesn’t really change. They still think that the banana is our worse nightmare and since peanut butter has never evolved into a monkey evolution is false.
Bold of you to extrapolate from the subset you personally know to the entire concept. That's like saying Germanic languages haven't changed in a significant way because the only Germanic language you know is Icelandic (obviously not the case because you're writing in English, but it's just a simily anyway).
I use them constantly on laptop with GNOME. It makes it easier to switch windows with touchpad. On desktop I don't use them so often, because I forget about them.
I use a combination of flux and a python app that checks out everything running on my cluster and keeps me a list of what needs some attention from upgrades and kube-clarity as well. It’s more kubernetes related though.
A index.html file that says “There’s nothing here”. Not even a special http status. I have subdomains with freshrss, dokuwiki, XBackBone, and whatever I’m tinkering with, but I can’t be bothered to maintain anything public. I guess I have personal websites I haven’t touched since 2012?
Arch and Debian. I have two home PCs with all my data on an smb share. One runs Debian 12, the other runs Arch. When I sit down I decide which I want to use and go. I couldn’t pick one I liked better so…I didn’t.
Many of my friends organize events and have group conversations on Facebook, and I miss out on a fair bit of it. I still have an account, I just don’t use it except to check once a week or so if there’s something happening. I hate it.
First version of my server, I wrote a bunch of custom shell scripts to execute docker run statements to launch all my containers b/c I didn’t know docker at all and didn’t want to learn compose.
Current version of my server, I use docker compose. But all the containers I use come from linuxserver.io, and they always give examples for both. I use ansible to deploy everything.
kbin.life
Hot