Quoting: Fester_Mudd

Quoting: Fester_MuddOf course they review packages within their resources. Are you serious assuming that they wouldn't at all? Or just a drama seeker towards Canonical and Ubuntu's :)

Quoting: pleasereadthemanualTo me, the above quote suggests that Canonical has never reviewed Snap packages until now.

I'm happy to be corrected.

Honestly. Your handle is "pleasereadthemanual" but here you are just assuming without even bothering to google (you would have found the answer right away). As they take more special measures to tackle this, to you it automatically suggests that before they did not review at all. Sure :happy: and upvotes from Ubuntu haters on these grounds :wink: i mean it's so obvious.

Linux users should keep together more. Many users could learn to google even, before such assumptions based on well nothing.....

You know, in the space it took to be bitchy, you could have told us all what this google search would reveal to us.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: 14It is clear you are passionate on your point of view and will continue an us versus them bitterness.

Us versus them is not generally about bitterness, although bitterness often gets involved once the lines are drawn. Ukraine and Russia are not fighting because anyone is bitter, although I am sure plenty of people on both sides are bitter.

As for "us versus them" and CEOs . . . well, if you look at trends in income, wealth and quality of life for the very wealthy and for everyone else, and you look at the policies that have driven those trends, and you look at the groups that have bent considerable effort to securing those policies and pushing the economic theories that profess to support them . . . the conclusion that the very wealthy are a "them", and that no matter what we might think, they're sure against us, becomes difficult to avoid. It is true that if one reaches this conclusion, one may become bitter.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I kind of like the way new built things pop up.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

To smooth out these fluctuations, Valve needs to start selling Steam Decks in China! :grin:

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: benstor214I don't comprehend why the fluctuations tend to grow stronger recently.

. . . And since Valve won't tell anything about the methodology of the survey, I expect we'll keep on not comprehending.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

You know, to this day every time I see "Master Chief" I find myself thinking "Master Chef".

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: 14

Quoting: Cybolic

Quoting: 14Companies are for-profit, ya know? Go to church if you want more of a family feel. Companies are not your family.

I'm afraid I have bad news [External Link] for you....

Sorta funny, but you're not claiming they're for profit, are you?

Regardless, if you don't like my example, my point still stands. Think of a different example I guess.

Ahem. "The library". :grin:

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Anyone else get the feeling that lately, various projects that were sort of not bothering with Wayland, having a sort of "leave it till later" attitude, are finding that "later" is now?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: StoneColdSpider

Quoting: Purple Library GuyThat is so not the reason. The reason is the execs are the ones with the power, making the firing choices. "Hmmm . . . should I fire myself, or a bunch of guys I've never met? Decisions, decisions . . ."

The shareholders have the power to order the board to fire the CEO and they also have the power to clear out the Board of Directors...... But they dont.......

Because they're all the same people and they all know what game is being played. So, the people with the direct power to fire CEOs are boards of directors. People on boards of directors are typically executives on other companies; most of these people sit on multiple such boards. The CEO the directors are evaluating sits on some of their boards of directors. It all interlocks. They do their best to avoid being rude enough to judge each other, or reduce their performance bonus even if they just ran the company into the ground, let alone sack them.

As to the shareholders themselves, there are currently three basic kinds of shareholder structures. There's the kind where there are many shareholders and no small group really controls it, which are increasingly rare. These are hardly ever activist, certainly not about overriding boards of directors with respect to CEOs; the small shareholders don't know enough about what's going on and they don't know each other so it's hard for them to organize. There's the kind controlled mostly by one or a few major shareholders. Major shareholders are of course very rich; they hang out with CEOs, not with line workers, and they think roughly the same way, particularly since CEOs are also significant shareholders. And, there's the kind that are controlled by Blackrock or similar funds. These funds are run by . . . CEOs who are on various boards of directors.

It has nothing to do with what would cost money or what would work, it has to do with who's in what class.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: BelaptirAre you suggesting that this (not)fifa is not just a rooster update

So, like, more colourful feathers, bigger wattles?

View this comment - View article - View full comments