• 0 Posts
  • 111 Comments
Joined 9 months ago
cake
Cake day: October 7th, 2023

help-circle




  • I’m thinking this comes from the consideration of taking imagery at the root of people’s brains when they hear Linux. Reiterating elements of the Windows or Mac UI over the decades, even if they had small visual changes, enable a significantly large population of the world to imagine the desktop even just while mentioned in a passing. Anyone that doesn’t use either of these OSes at least can have a basic imagery popping up about it due to constant advertising of the desktop via direct ads, support pages, tech websites using generic desktop images, screen shares, etc.

    Linux is wild west in this regard. Everyone knows how Windows or MacOS looks like thanks to their abundant copies of descriptive bounty posters, but only other Linux users are familiar with other Linux desktops and that is usually as the names of fellow bounty hunters.









  • I’m not porposing or defending any approach here, where do you draw the line between the decision to address the underlying issues and catering to creating isolated environments to shelter the marginalized groups, tho?

    I get that taking a breather in a safe environment to help with self-esteem and love is critical so as not to sink below that threshold of constantly feeling overwhelmed that is different for everyone, and I’m in no way seeing a one-day thing as anything else, but as public coordination events, how do you draw the line between the two I mentioned above? First example of going beyond giving breathing room to making a segregation comes to mind as the “pink buses” in which only women are allowed to be feel safe from men that some right-wing politicians bring up from time to time as a similar topic on addressing the cause vs treating the symptom or even causing different problems under such intention.







  • Thanks for the detailed explanation about publicly traded companies, but what I wonder is the privately owned ones being forced to sell out, if there is such a thing.

    For example, lets say Proton is owned by a few shareholders or just one, and it is not openly traded unless the shareholders make personal agreements to sell out or anything like that. If Google came with a truckload of cash and told these shareholders to sell their shares to Google, can they simply refuse the offer no matter how big is the pile of cash or the benefits of the offer, or do they have to find a legal reason to keep their shares? I mean, even the question sounds stupid and the answer should be “yeah you can just keep your share and run the company however you like, as long as you don’t go public listing”, but with all the concerns about the buyouts talked all around this last few years, the premise looks like it is hard to hold out.


  • What is this buying out talked about something not escapable if not some legal reorganization is made? It has been being talked about other companies, too, and it sounds like if you have a form of a company, you can’t legally refuse monetary offers from someone to buy your company.

    Is there such a legal mechanism that forces an owner to sell out if an offer is made, or is this more about proofing a company against CEO/shareholder personal sell out decision?