My journey was Windows-> Ubuntu -> Mint -> Fedora -> Arch.

(Infuriatingly i still use windows for gaming, but nothing else.)

Did i mention that i use arch?

More importantly:

fucked up all my data with no backup.

One time i messed up a script and accidentally copied 40,000 mp3s to the same filename. 20 years of music collecting, literally going back to Napster, all gone.

Well, not completely gone. I've got everything uploaded to iBroadcast, and I'm pretty sure i can download my library. But I'm not sure i deserve to.

iBroadcast is what i use. That plus rutracker and you can sail the high seas like it's 1699.

Follow up question -- I'm not OP but I'm another not-really-new developer (5 years professional xp) that has 0 experience working with others:

I have trouble understanding where to go on the spectrum of "light touch" and "doing a really good job". (Tldr) How should a contributor gauge whether to make big changes to "do it right" or to do it a little hacky just to get the job done?

For example, I wanted to make a dark mode for a site i use, so i pulled the sites's repo down and got into it.

The CSS was a mess. I've done dark modes for a bunch of my own projects, and I basically just assign variables (--foreground-color, --background-color), and then swap their assignments by the presence or absence of a ".dark-mode" class in the body tag.

But the site had like 30 shades of every color, like, imperceptibly different shades of red or green. My guess was the person used a color picker and just eyeballed it.

If the site was mine, I would normalize them all but there was such a range -- some being more than 10-15% different from each other -- so i tried to strike a balance in my normalization. I felt unsure whether this was done by someone who just doesn't give a crap about color/CSS or if it was carefully considered color selection.

My PR wasn't accepted (though the devs had said in discord that i could/should submit a PR for it). I don't mind that it wasn't accepted, but i just don't know why. I don't want to accidentally step on toes or to violate dev culture norms.

Honest question: why not? Facebook/Google/Microsoft are up to some disgusting shit, are their Russian counterparts significantly different?

Apparently the brigade has found you, but i want you to know that i agree (mostly). Obviously it kind of sucks tohavve Russian as the default language on everything you get from there, and there's some super-obscure music I've failed to find on there, but it's basically my first stop these days, whether it's Abbot Elementary or CompTIA training videos.

For sure. Look, I hate Stack Overflow as much as the next guy but you gotta admit, for the big picture, long term, best practice for the future of software development, that's the correct format: one question, focused discussion, end.

Discord's failure to make its history available is really going to put a big hole in the middle of our cultural wisdom.

When you say "most of the US" do you mean the Midwest? Because that's mostly true. Prairie is kinda garbage imo. (I'm sure it's all very ecologically necessary, I'm just talking about whether it's nice to be in.)

But outside of the Midwest, the US has a shit ton of forests, some hardcore deserts, a couple of mountain ranges here and there... Even Florida swampland is pretty cool if you're not considered edible to gators. There's definitely some featureless bullshit but usually we put a top secret military base in those bits that have aliens and zombie virus labs etc, so there's even stuff to do there

I've never actually been to Texas, but I've always wondered what it looks like in those big empty spots on the map. I assume it's just big parking lots.

If only there was a way to talk about political ideology that indicated some kind of direction, then we could orient the data in such a way that the arrows went in the direction of that ideology.

Tfw your main campaign promises are all the things you're not supposed to say out loud

Why can't they just flip burgers from the age of 16 till 65? What if they don't mind the work, they have a full and fulfilling life outside of work, and their job is just what they do to make ends meet? Does that mean they deserve to live in debt and working 100 hours a week? Are you so ignorant that you don't understand that, in any economic system, capitalism or otherwise, not everyone can move up?

It's literally not possible. There have to be people flipping the burgers. That's a fact of the system; there's no way around that. And it's ok -- not perfect, but acceptable -- as long as we treat those people with dignity and respect.

And that means paying them enough to survive -- and thrive -- on 40 hours a week. No one's saying they should have enough money to buy megayachts -- or even regular yachts. But they should be able to buy a shitty canoe -- and still be able to pay all their bills, and not have to work more than 40 hours.

If you're concerned about the possibility that, if they earn more, you'll earn less, that's just not true. There's no scenario in the USA where a company is charging customers any less than the most they possibly can, and paying their workers any more than as little as possible. That's literally the law. There is plenty of extra money that can be used to cover the needs of our poorest people -- and to raise the salaries of more scarce labor who would otherwise turn to flipping burgers if burger-flipping salaries went up.

Literally every business that's even a little successful has extra money. ("Extra money" is also known as profit.) There is no reason why one person should have to work more than 40 hours a week while another person has more money then they can possibly spend in a lifetime; it's illogical and irrational, and cruel.

Is that supposed to be an argument? That there are two ways to pronounce the letter g? I was actually already aware of that - even before I'd ever heard of gifs.

So your argument is actually that people who pronounce it with a hard G have just never heard anyone say it.

And we're taking about dot-g-i-f, the format that is hugely shared as memes and as reactions in chats, a form so well known that it's at Kleenex level of awareness - awareness that exceeds itself - ie, all other variants of this format (apng, animated webp, even webm) are called gifs.

And you're saying that most people, which is, given the prevalence of gifs, probably most of our species at this point - most of the sentient life forms in our solar system are aware of this format's name... But we've just never heard anyone say it. Except for a small, vocal minority - who exist mostly on the Internet and are deeply online. Those are the only people who have heard it said out loud.

And, in that impossible scenario, most of our species - who have, again, never heard it said it loud - billions of people - all, independently, came up with the same, supposedly incorrect, pronunciation.

That's your argument? I feel like your case would be stronger without it.

It's like intentionally taking a Principal Skinner stance - everyone else on earth is wrong. Except, at least Skinner was oblivious.

There's simply no justification for the jif pronunciation. There's an explanation - ie, because the creator of the format wanted to float his success on the back of a peanut butter brand. And it didn't even work - no one calls it "jif" and yet it's probably got better name recognition than the peanut butter. But - even as weak as that explanation is, an explanation is not a justification. A justified pronunciation - even if it's different from the original pronunciation, is one people natively come up with, and yet is always the same.