Aceticon

They've always distributed Linux versions for games that have them an those are the ones which pop-up by default on the game's downloads pages if you're browsing their site from Linux, so it's not as if they don't support Linux.

What you mean is that they haven't created their own Linux distro and Wine fork like Steam.

Meanwhile because they ship DRM-free games with offline installers they're actually closer to the spirit of Linux than Steam: you have full control over how you run a game you got for them (for example, I try to run all games sandboxed with networking restricted to localhost only plus a number of other safety limitations, which I can do with GOG games launched from Lutris but not with Steam games).

As I see it Steam does a lot of handholding (both in Windows and Linux) in exchange for them retaining a ton of control over your gaming, whilst GOG just gives you maximum freedom but with zero handholding.

Maybe because I've been a Techie and Gamer since the 90s, personally I vastly prefer the later approach but I can see how people who grew up in the hand-holding era of computing would value convenience over control.

Even more important, IMHO, is that it weren't the Germans who rebelled and overthrew the NAZIs, foreigners were the ones who defeated the NAZIs and pushed Germans to change.

A powerful "this is wrong" amongst the German bringing down the NAZIs would have been a reflection of a change of spirit and way of thinking (or the majority even never really having thought like that to begin with), whilst this externally imposed change as consequence of the military defeat at the hands of a cohalition of Western nations followed by an occupation (which didn't last long and didn't really try to integrate Germans into the conquering nation's culture) just means what was changed was that which is visible to outsiders - the appearances, not the spirit.

It's no surprise the fast rise of the AfD in Germany when even parties like the Greens still think along the same "it is right to treat different races differently" lines as in the "old days" and the German political mainstream thinks Surveillance and using Lawmaking and Policing as an iron fist to suppress ideological dissent are appropriate tools to use in a supposed Democracy.

The most visible elements like the goose stepping and the swastika might have gone but the ~~treating~~ putting races before people and the preference for authoritarian methods never went away.

I lived for over a decade in Britain until about 5 years ago and by the time I left I truly believed the UK was the most likely country in Europe to turn Fascist within a decade.

So far, they're well on schedule and there isn't a month without some news about it further confirming how wise my decision to leave after the Brexit vote was.

They literally have a Press Censorship system where they will send something called "D-Notices" to newspapers to shut them up.

Most sugar consumed in Europe is from sugarcane.

Most sugar produced in Europe is from sugarbeets, but that production is still less than the imported sugar from sugarcane (because sugarcane is just vastly more productive).

They didn't extract sugar from sugar beet back in the 14th century. In fact only in 1747 was it discovered that beets had sucrose and sugar beets themselves were only created after that, via selective breeding, so I don't think they had sugar as we know it back then. However as somebody else pointed out, they had honey which has a very high concentration of sugar.

I suspected sugar wasn't extracted from sugar beet in the Middle Ages or earlier but I wasn't sure and prompted by your question I went searching for it and indeed that is the case since sugar beets didn't even exist back then.

You're the one dying on the hill of defending that grand proclamations of how they're going to help Palestine from the very politicians currently shipping weapons to Israel should be taken unquestionably at face value, and hence that they're really taking a step forward.

Had this been done when there was no Holocaust by Starvation in Gaza and those politicians were not under public pressure to do something about it, then yeah, it would have been a positive action for Palestine as whole since it would open the door for eventual improvements there, but right now, by delaying effective action as wished by the public, that tiny positive potential impact in the future is more than offset by the continued deaths that mean there will be no such Future for tens of thousands or even millions in Gaza, and this "action" does nothing to address that.

The greatest impact this has is to reduce pressure on those politicians to address the problem, so de facto this is a step backwards compared to "doing nothing" as it wields the same result to Gazans whilst by reducing the pressure on politicians makes it less likely that they're forces to take an effective action.

The only way to confuse this with a step forward if you completelly ignore the broader context of how most of the people who might derive a tiny benefit from this will be dead or have lost far more than they will gain from said tiny benefit when that benefit delivers anything, and the political managing of public opinion component of this.

People who don't comply with some societal norm or other are always seen as "weird" or just "quirky" by those who do, especially those who make a huge effort to fit in.

This applies to just about everything, including the behaviours of the neurodivergent.

IMHO, what makes it a problem is that the judgmental takes (i.e. "weird" rather than merely "quirky") are accepted and even condoned in present day society which de facto means the bullying linked to negative judgements against people for being unusual is accepted and even condoned.

PS: To pick up on what others said, having the explanation "Autism" does seem to make it less socially acceptable to be judgemental about it.

That's a perfect example of a False Dichotomy - there are literally thousands of options other that merely "nothing" and "non-binding promise full of caveats of no-impact future action".

Quite a lot of those thousands of options actually impact Israel NOW.

Chosing to avoid any of those impactful action options and pushing instead for a "promise of future no impact action, if certain vague conditions are met" is exactly how politicians avoid being accused of "doing nothing" whilst de facto doing nothing: this a very common political strategy to avoid action until it's too late when under pressure from public opinion to act now, so it's actually worse than doing nothing at all (because it has the same practical results as doing nothing at all, whilst reducing pressure to act hence making it less likely that effective actions will ever be taken).

You seem to have fallen for this common political scam hook, line and sinker.

The point of this talkie talkie from the Canadian PM now is exactly to delay effective actions like that until it's too late, by which point he'll pivot to "it's too late to do anything now".

One thing is the Canadian people, a totally different thing are Canadian politicians in this era: this kind of talkie-talkie delaying technique is exactly because the government doesn't want to do what the people want, so they do "promises of near meaningless action in the future" instead to look like they're "doing something" whilst avoiding like the Plague actual effective action (which in this case means immediate Sanctions on Israel).

I'm intimatelly familiar with this kind of shit because I lived in Britain and this delaying technique was frequently used there (though doing it to allow a nation to keep on mass starving children to death is a new low, even for British politicians).

(Unsurprisingly, if you read the articles about it, you'll see that this latest political move was started by the British PM).

They'll pivot to "It's too late now", which is always how political delaying tactics like this one work.

Carney learned his politics working for the Tories (who are basically posh Fascists) in Britain as head of the Bank Of England and this tactic of promising something near meaningless in the future to avoid doing now the actual things required to address the problem that the public opinion demands (such as sanctions on Israel) is very common over there.

This shit is pure hypocrisy, which is why the British Government (who, right now, are arresting people for merelly planning to demonstrate against the Genocide) came up with the idea.