Actually young Europeans are losing faith in the actual implementation where constantly lying politicians suffer zero consequences while the media floods everything with bullshit as a diversion.
This BS article with it’s utter misrepresentation of the actual study cited is a perfect example of the latter…
You can’t have a high military budget, a big military industrial complex, knowledge about your stockpiles (and the rate at which they are depleted) for several years and problems with your stockpiles running dangerously low all at the same time.
And given that we know the first three points to be a fact…
You forgot the one that is still compiling…
What do you mean by poor long term stability? It’s a rolling release. I run the same installation for basically forever, while fixed releases’ life-time is measured in just a few years before you lose support and need to do a full distro upgrade… which rarely seems to work without problems.
PS: I just looked it up. The first date in my pacman log in from 2014…
For the majority there is sadly a very simple answer…
Reason #1 to be at risked of being impacted by that malware? You don’t care and won’t read a technical article either.
But why is this thing wasting so much electricity on my side with black text on bright white background?
Depends: If you want to show that officials are blatantly lying the stuff they say is indeed the relevant information.
I might surprise you but people don’t vote for the law as written but indeed for plans and promises made by law makers.
Okay, then let me rephrase it: When “nearly half” disapprove it can (and probably does) mean that there is still no majority (or plurality) approving, which is what OP falsely concluded.
To be fair here and without looking up numbers, such polls tend to often show the same pattern. Something like 45% A, 30% undecided, 25% B.
So when “nearly half” disapprove it can still mean “a majority” does.
That’s not wrong but a seperate problem mainly caused by lock-in strategies that are not exactly the same as marketshare or industry standards and are explicitly distinct from the actual OS’s capabilties.
I know enough people who have the exact same problem but with Apple as their employer forces them to use software only available there. Yet their marketshare for desktops is just a tiny fraction of what we see for Windows (~15% if we are optimsitic).
So will we pretend that Linux with a 10 or 15% marketshare (not that far off for an OS with already 5+%) is suddenly a valid alternative. Or are we honest and acknowledge that this is indeed NOT about Linux’ capability to be a valid Windows replacement but purely about the fact that there isn’t (an never will be…) a massive corporation spending billions in marketing and lobbying to create perceived standards simply by throwing money at the problem for even higher future gains?
But what will I do if marketshare of Linux does not increase properly? Oh, wait… who cares? I just use Linux for my daily work but are not a shareholder that needs constant massive growth of imaginary numbers.
by factor of 3 obviously…
No, because the whole Manjaro concept is bullshit.
Delaying updates by two weeks for a few more checks could help catch some bugs that went unnoticed, but not in the way Manjaro does it. Which means with no rhyme or reason at all. They don’t use the two weeks for additional tests. They don’t even collect fixes or patches based on the bleeding edge experience of actual Arch to apply to their delayed updates. They just delay updates, fixes and everything by two weeks. So your system is exactly as unstable as Arch just with 2 weeks delay.
And it gets worse from there: Arch has a disclaimer about the AUR being unsupported and requires you to install AUR helpers manually, so you did it at least once the old-school way and actually see the disclaimer. Manjaro however gives you access to the AUR pre-installed. No, not a cloned version of the AUR that is also 2 weeks behind. Direct access to one as used by Arch that expects your system to be up-to-date, not 2 weeks behind… introducing a completely new kind of dependency hell and instability.
PS: And that’s before questionable stuff on the Manjaro side… like letting their SSL certificates expire multiple times (and suggesting changing your devices clock as a “fix”) or DDOS’ing the AUR with a bug in their AUR helper, also multiple times.
And adhering to the law would kill my thriving “pay me a dollar and I allow you to club a billionaire to death”-business. So what?
No.
If I tell my lawyer about a child I abused years ago he can do exactly nothing as there is no imminent crime to prevent that would allow him breaking confidality.
If I tell my priest the same applies.
If you want to change that, change the laws binding those people. But don’t pretend that the church is going out of its way to protect child abuse by in reality doing nothing and applying the same rule indiscriminately exactly like they did for a millenium.
or you have so little faith in your church
I will tell you a secret: Not everything in the world is about tribes or team sports. I personally deem any organized religion as an abomination.
But when a “remember that the confession’s confidentiality is absolute, has been exactly like this for nearly a millenium and you are beholden to god’s/church laws first an foremost” (so the same unchanged statement as always) is reframed as the church somehow explicitly going out of its way to protect child abuse specifically people should actually notice that they are being manipulated.
Are you seriously arguing that child abusers should be protected by the church because of historical precedent?
No I’m arguing that it is well within your rights to argue for changes in that basically ancient church law. If that’s what you want to do, go one. I would actually agree.
But if you instead pretend that this is not about the seal of confession but hallucinate how the modern church is somehow going out of its way to protect child abuse (like a lot of commenters here do) you have completely lost the plot.
That the point…
In reality nobody loses faith in democracy. They simply criticise the application/implementation (specifically the EU one that isn’t very democratic in the first place and the total lack of consequences for lying politicians).
But the decline of democracy has another facet… the deteriation of media quality and information being replaced by attention seeking and framed clickbait bullshit. Which is what brings you this rediculous misinterpretation of the cited study.
Or: reading this article should not tell you that people lose faith in democracy but should make you lose faith in journalistisc standards at the Guardian.