Trying it these past days and I'm impressed!

Tried Startpage a while ago, but was put off but some alleged iffy dealings of the company behind it. Trying SearXNG now and I'm impressed!

I can agree, but could say the same of the others or of other answers. Viewer count may be very different in different countries too. My rule of thumb for "obscure" is: something I mentioned to acquaintances that they'd never heard of.

findmnt --real

Cheers! Apparently Ubuntu uses the relatime setting.

Edit: explicitly installing 10.1 with

sudo apt install wine-staging=10.1~focal-1 wine-staging-amd64=10.1~focal-1 wine-staging-i386:i386=10.1~focal-1 winehq-staging=10.1~focal-1

worked.

Thank you for the help!

But I can't remove wine-staging, at least not via apt:

$ sudo apt remove wine-staging-i386
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree       
Reading state information... Done
You might want to run 'apt --fix-broken install' to correct these.
The following packages have unmet dependencies.
 wine-staging : Depends: wine-staging-i386 (= 10.2~focal-2)
                Depends: wine-staging-amd64 (= 10.2~focal-2) but 10.2~focal-1 is to be installed
E: Unmet dependencies. Try 'apt --fix-broken install' with no packages (or specify a solution).

So no go there. --fix-broken doesn't work either:

$ sudo apt --fix-broken install
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree       
Reading state information... Done
Correcting dependencies... Done
The following additional packages will be installed:
  wine-staging-amd64
The following packages will be upgraded:
  wine-staging-amd64
1 to upgrade, 0 to newly install, 0 to remove and 9 not to upgrade.
3 not fully installed or removed.
Need to get 0 B/114 MB of archives.
After this operation, 15.4 kB of additional disk space will be used.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n] Y
Preconfiguring packages ...
(Reading database ... 393922 files and directories currently installed.)
Preparing to unpack .../wine-staging-amd64_10.2~focal-2_amd64.deb ...
Unpacking wine-staging-amd64 (10.2~focal-2) over (10.2~focal-1) ...
dpkg: error processing archive /var/cache/apt/archives/wine-staging-amd64_10.2~focal-2_amd64.deb (--unpack):
 trying to overwrite '/opt/wine-staging/bin/wine', which is also in package wine-staging-i386:i386 10.2~focal-2
dpkg-deb: error: paste subprocess was killed by signal (Broken pipe)
Errors were encountered while processing:
 /var/cache/apt/archives/wine-staging-amd64_10.2~focal-2_amd64.deb
E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)

Any idea on how to remove Wine manually, bypassing apt?

The problem is that the whole apt system seems to be broken. It doesn't let me install other packages, and I can't even uninstall wine. So I wonder if any fixes from wine will work. It looks like this needs the user's manual intervention.

$ sudo apt upgrade 
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree       
Reading state information... Done
You might want to run 'apt --fix-broken install' to correct these.
The following packages have unmet dependencies.
 wine-staging : Depends: wine-staging-amd64 (= 10.2~focal-2) but 10.2~focal-1 is installed
E: Unmet dependencies. Try 'apt --fix-broken install' with no packages (or specify a solution).

$ sudo apt remove wine-staging-amd64
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree       
Reading state information... Done
You might want to run 'apt --fix-broken install' to correct these.
The following packages have unmet dependencies.
 wine-staging : Depends: wine-staging-amd64 (= 10.2~focal-2) but it is not going to be installed
E: Unmet dependencies. Try 'apt --fix-broken install' with no packages (or specify a solution).

but sudo apt --fix-broken install does not solve anything...

On top of that, the actual results are behind a paywall and can be very iffy. It sounds like there were only 12 people in the 6-hour group and in each of the other groups. And no indications about other traits like sex, smoking or other habits, and so on. Too small numbers to guarantee against statistical fluctuations. And the "significant" in the abstract may indicate that they used p-values to quantify their results, which are today considered iffy by a large chunk of the statistics community...

😂

We aren't supposed to accept that. We can simply not use their software. And as users that's the only power we have on devs. But it's a power that only works on devs who are interested in having many users.

Fully agree.

It's worth posting the blog post you linked.

Personally I disagree on value of sex/nude scenes – but it's a subjective matter of course. Your final argument is absolutely fair and logical, and very general too. Extremely well put – I subscribe 110% to it!

Agree 110%! It's sad because it pushes back those people who were curious about alternatives and were willing to try. Hopefully things will improve with time...