I’ve been wanting to for a few years now as the service gets worse (where is my playlist radio?) but have been complacent. This is the last thing to push me over my limit. I’ll be transferring my decade-worth of playlists this weekend.
When I consider changes to language, I try to start from a prescriptivist position rather than a descriptivist, which to me means assuming language should stay static to ensure a common understanding rather than fragmented meanings that lead to misunderstandings. If there is a change in language, it should justify itself through simplifying terms or adding a new meaning that other words lack, while avoiding harming the meanings of pre-existing words.
I use they/them pronouns for non-binary people as an example of this mindset in action because I think the benefits far outweigh any cons. With a greater understanding that non-binary people new language was needed, and they/them seems to me a very natural fit as I would already think to use it when asking about a stranger even before I knew of non-binary as a concept (“oh your friend is coming? What’s their name, are they a boy or a girl?). In my experience having a very close non-binary friend I have found that context tells whether I’m using they as a singular/plural pronoun ~90% of the time, and when it fails it adds maybe 20 seconds of clarification to explain I was referring to person’s name.
I think what you’re saying should be taken as inspiration for further evolving how we use those terms to better separate between singular and plural use rather than try backtracking on how it has already evolved in common use, and I think the answer (for me at least) lies in your very comment. Much like “you” vs “you all”, going forward I’ll put a little effort into using they/them in a singular context and use “them all” or “they all” as a plural. Maybe it will catch on and 30 years from now we’ll be saying “theyal” and “theyal’ll” as shorthand for “they all” and “they all will.”
Tots and pears, sounds like thoughts and prayers.
I’ve never heard that the initial investment has to come from a third party for it to be considered capitalism. Does that mean if a person had a business, sold it, then took the capital from that sale to start a new business that couldn’t be considered capitalism since a third party wasn’t the one investing?
Corporatists? Are you looking for the word corpocrats or corporatocrats?
Edit: corporatocracy is a government ran by corporate business interests, such as we see in the US.
Corporatism is a governance principle that government is a meeting ground for “corporate groups” to make decisions. Corporate groups represent a group of people, typically business leaders but also unions.
In a fascist corporatist state like Mussolini’s Italy this meant keeping business and union leaders close to keep a close eye on them for greater control. In a social corporatist state like Sweden, this means those same leaders have a legally mandated place in the government to get the benefits of capitalist growth tempered by the demands of common workers to receive a fair share of that growth and ensure safe working/living conditions.
I don’t think the powers that be in the US want unions anywhere close to the government, so I don’t think corporatist is the right term.
I mean, the guy is fucking Satan.
Believe me, I was headed toward emotional burnout long before I discovered drugs.
Hey now, I get an extra shot of espresso when I get Caribou because I want sugar and coffee!
My understanding is that one of the upsides to Bazzite is that Nvidia drivers are pretty easy to install and manage. That was the thing that turned me off of Fedora when I tried making the switch to that a couple years ago.
Is that easy to do in Kinoite? This is the first I’ve heard of it, and it sounds like exactly what I would want out of Bazzite.