What I consider a “better interface” is almost certainly not what a new user would consider a “better interface.”

Mobile operating systems (Android, IOS) don’t give the user enough freedom to understand how the system works, the best you can hope for is an understanding of how to use the technology. Knowing how technology works is very different from knowing how to use technology.

Your other post really makes it sound like you think people use GrapheneOS to hurt Google’s business model.

GrapheneOS runs Google play services in a sandbox (rather than as a system level app) and randomizes the advertiser ID, IIRC.

People don’t use GrapheneOS to avoid giving Google their money. They do it to protect their privacy.

Those are libraries used by user space applications. Most distros won’t boot without them, but you can still get into a recovery shell.

The basis of classical libertarianism is the non-aggression principal, which basically means “don’t harm others.” Seems like that would include causing harm after you die. But modern libertarianism seems to have a very strange interpretation of that principal…

Very true, at least at that level in politics.

That’s disappointing. Maybe “modern libertarianism” would have been more accurate than “American libertarianism.” According to Wikipedia, in the 1950’s libertarianism was synonymous with liberalism, which seems to align much better with my interpretation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Etymology

I wonder if Penn’s (old) interpretation of libertarianism was the same as mine.

I think you misunderstood my point. What you’re referring to as “libertarianism” and “the Libertarian party” is what I referred to as “American libertarianism.”

I don’t believe true libertarianism exists in the USA. I agree with your point that the Democratic party most closely aligns with the theory of libertarianism. It sounds like you agree with the point I was trying to make, but maybe misinterpreted it.

Edit: I want to add that the Libertarian party in America doesn’t follow the principal of non-aggression as I understand it.

It seems to me like American libertarianism isn’t truly libertarianism - its focus is on freedom for capitalists, not freedom for people (corporations are not people). In theory, libertarianism is guided by the principal of non-aggression. Passing laws to fight climate change does not violate the principal of non-aggression, despite what the capitalists claim.

*Balmer peak

No, this was purely the pilot’s fault, and they’re employed by Southwest. The government cuts have affected ATC, but they aren’t responsible for the pilots knowing the difference between a runway and a taxiway.