Such a rich and vibrant culture.

It’s not a world government.

Exactly. The UN is NOT a world government and we need to stop expecting it to act as one. That was never the intention of the UN.

That being said, a lot of people talk about the necessity for the “rule of law,” but there cannot be the rule of law without some kind of government with the authority to enact and ENFORCE laws. If nations are not willing to sign on to something like that, we cannot have the rule of law. Instead we will have the rule of whichever country has the largest, most powerful military and/or economic influence. I know a lot of Americans are fine with that arrangement because that position is currently occupied by the US, and has been for more than half a century, but the US might not always occupy that role. I wonder how those Americans would feel about this arrangement if China, for instance, were the world’s hegemon instead of the US?

As a species things do just keep getting better for us, except in periods of systemic transition.

I think that’s been generally true since the first agricultural revolution led to the emergence of civilization, 10,000 or so years ago. But, progress has not been linear, it’s been exponential, with most of the progress occurring in just the last few hundred years, since the industrial revolution. In that regard, the progress that we’ve experienced over the last few hundred years has been anomalous.

The way of life that we take for granted today is very different from how most of humanity has lived through the vast majority of history (and that was itself very different from how our species had lived through the vast majority of our existence, with humans living in small hunter-gatherer tribes for most of our time as a species).

Modern life has existed for only the blink of an eye, on evolutionary time scales. Yet, in that time we have used up an incredible amount of natural resources, and we have made significant, irreversible changes to the Earth’s biosphere and climate.

It took our species nearly all of the 10,000 years of civilization’s existence to go from a few million people on the planet to a billion, but it only took a little over two centuries to do from one billion people to over eight billion. That kind of exponential growth simply cannot be sustained indefinitely on a planet with finite resources. Even at maximum possible resource use efficiency, and even with the maximum possible environmental impact mitigation efforts, the Earth still wouldn’t be able to sustain our growth forever. We would reach some hard, physical limit to growth, eventually.

I feel like our whole lives here in the US we’ve been told to expect things to just generally keep getting better, seemingly forever. Like, that’s the narrative of “progress.” The economy just keeps growing, the nation just keeps getting richer, technology just keeps getting better, living standards just keep getting better, so forth and so on. But, that was probably never realistic, or even feasible. I mean, no civilization progresses forever. Essentially every civilization that’s ever existed has followed a pattern of ascension followed by decline. Many of the most notable civilizations ascended very quickly and dramatically, and then collapsed just as quickly and dramatically. Why should we expect to be any different? What makes us think we won’t follow the same pattern as basically every other civilization in history?

I’m drinking my dinner plans right now. But I drive by a Culver’s all the time. I’ll definitely stop in someday soon and give it a try.

Yeah.

I’ve never been to Culver’s. Is it any good?

Young men, maybe. I’m in my 40s and there’s no way in hell I’m sleeping on a thin mattress on the floor. That would destroy my back.

It is a scientific fact that Tennessee has the worst drivers. Not my state, btw.

It’s fairly straightforward: they don’t want restrictions placed on their rights to own and carry a gun, but they absolutely want restrictions placed on the rights of their political enemies.

Why would you want a majority of people using the same distribution?

I don’t, necessarily. I just think it’s the only way we will ever see widespread adoption of Linux on desktops. But, maybe I’m wrong. Honestly, I hope I am. I hope through changes in the culture and more education, people will make the switch. But, I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t skeptical.

they will complain that MSO, Photoshop, Premiere doesn’t work

That’s true. They will. But maybe if enough users switch to SteamOS, Adobe, and other software developers might port their software to it. That’s really the only hope for widespread Linux desktop adoption.

Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe more people will be willing to endure a learning curve for the freedom and openness of Linux, but I think that path to widespread Linux adoption would take a long time, if it happens at all.

Yeah, one more with the name recognition, like you mentioned. People don’t know what Silverblue is, they don’t know what an immutable distribution is, and, frankly, I don’t think they’re interested in learning. But they know Steam. Sad, perhaps, but true.

there are already a lot of immutable Linux distros

Exactly. There are a lot, and that’s confusing for most people. The fact that people have so many choices makes them less likely to switch. Most people want ease, simplicity and convenience.

Until there is one, single distribution that the vast majority of people can install on their existing hardware, that just works, easily and conveniently, Linux will remain a relatively niche desktop OS. I think when Valve finally releases the desktop version is SteamOS, that might do the trick.

Linux will really take off when Valve finally releases the desktop version of SteamOS.

I’m sure it’s true for some women. But I wouldn’t be surprised if most working women were either married or in a committed relationship. Plus, a lot of households have two incomes out of necessity. Both partners need to work full time just to make ends meet.

Gnome

Fedora for life.