The problem there is that stable vs unstable distro uses a slightly different meaning of the word stable than you would use to talk about a stable vs unstable system.
In distro speak, a stable distro is one that changes very little over time, and an unstable one is one that changes constantly. That's sort of tangentially related to reliability, in that if your system is reliable and doesn't change then it's likely to stay that way, but it's not the same thing as reliability.
Normal people who use Arch don't bring it up much, because they're all sick of the memes and are really, REALLY tired of immediately being called rude elitist neckbeard cultists every time they mention it.
The Ubuntu hate is because Canonical has a long history of making weird, controversial decisions that split the Linux community for no good reason.
No you weren't. That would be ridiculous. The deb dependencies are most of your Linux install. Maybe counting just the new dependencies being installed alongside a typical deb install, but that's still not an apples to apples comparison to 100% of all the flatpak dependencies, even ones shared with other flatpaks, and even that's still very rarely over 1GB.
Atomic distros are cool, and I'm sure they will only get more popular, but I don't buy the idea that they're "The" future. They have their place, but they can't really completely replace traditional distros. Not every new thing needs to kill everything that came before it.
That's not really true. It lists all the flatpak dependencies in that disk use, but a lot of those are shared, so they don't actually use that much each if you install more than one, and the deb dependencies aren't included at all. Flatpaks really do use more space, especially if you only have a small number of them, but it's not as bad as that.
Crap. My rep is on there. I'm actually going to have to call, aren't I? Fine. Fine. I'll do it. It is done.
Australia's bigger than Antarctica, and if you don't care about that "canal crap" then there are only really two continents bigger than it.
Look, Mozilla makes tons of decisions I disagree with, and this is one of them, but some of y'all have turned hyperbolic, misleading, unwarranted Mozilla hate into your entire personality.
Feel free to point out when they do something stupid, but if you're going to do that try to keep it to the facts instead of trying to make it seem like every dumb little thing they do is the apocalypse. It's impossible to take you seriously with titles like this.
So... How many burritos worth of debt do you need before you count as a VIP?
The entire Weddell Sea is just north of Antarctica. That's where the Weddell Sea is. The problem is that everything near Antarctica is just north of Antarctica, including things on the complete opposite side of the entire continent. It's just a way of saying near Antarctica that sounds like you're giving more information than you really are.
It can vary from location to location, but honestly I think a lot of it is that a pretty significant percentage of management can't get an erection unless they're watching people suffer.
I thought the box was too small for him, but he proved me wrong.
Man, it would be such a massive upgrade for the western US if the borders had been carefully negotiated by... literally anyone, for any reason. They're actually just mostly straight lines drawn at random by people who had never been within a thousand miles of them, and they make absolutely no sense at all.
Also, for the record, I hate the idea that cities and the rural areas surrounding them should be separate and have no shared finances and no say in how each other are run. That's a stupid plan that would immediately result in rural areas having their infrastructure fail, and the cities then all starving. It is a very, very stupid idea, and the very fact that there is a big urban/rural cultural divide is one of the things killing America.