coz

joined 2 years ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I loved Gentoo, it was the first distro I actually stuck with for more than a couple months, I used for 7 years or so.

I went to arch because something broke (probably my fault) and I needed to write a paper that was due soon, and compilation of the required software took too long, so I switched so it wouldn't happen again. Arch was sold to me as "Gentoo with binaries".

That being said I think you're being unfair. I read the Arch's wiki before installing unknown packages, mostly skimming, just like I did with Gentoo but Gentoo's docs were somewhat superior. The docs were one of the things I missed.

Most of the time I didn't read about the use-flags, except for big packages like Gnome. I only changed the use-flags if I knew for sure I wouldn't use that functionality, so all the maybes and what-ifs still got compiled. TBH fiddling too much with use-flag feels like a newbie thing. On Arch there are actually more steps: I install the big multi-packages then uninstall the ones I don't want, because those are less than the ones I want, and I don't risk missing something.

On neither Gentoo or Arch I read the docs of the dependencies unless there's a specific reason.

Same goes for the Kernel. Don't disable things you don't know about, enable all things you maybe will use and all the what-ifs. Once I knew what these were, setting this was quick and simple because they are actually just a couple options.

All that only has to do once, because once you know, even if you reinstall the OS you don't have to investigate again unless something goes wrong because of changes.

The community of Gentoo is great! Arch's community is okay.

With both Arch and Gentoo you have to learn about the system and make choices. With Gentoo you have to make more choices but making them and learning is easier than Arch. If OP used Gentoo this would have gone smoother.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 years ago

I lurk 99% of the time and post 1% of the time

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

There was a study that found that Aspartame increased cancer risk, which was used as the base for all the current claims. The study was found to be flawed and it has not been reproduced since then, but due to confirmation bias and the desire to manipulate others the idea keeps communicating. That's one weakness of science, you can make up research and the average person will use it to confirm their biases, even if it's one study versus a hundred

That being said, there may be other risks with artificial sweeteners, I'm just talking about that specific study

Science is complicated and most people don't know how to apply it. For example, an university graduate does not know how to read published research and how to apply it to the real world, because beyond training that needs a lot of practice and feedback. People think that hearing the news or reading the paper will let them know the truth; it won't because they haven't developed the capacity to do so, yet they ask for a source they can't really understand. That's why you are supposed to go to a professional instead of doing what you think you should do on your own

The only people I've found that are worth giving sources to are PhDs or experts in their fields. Everyone else just fucks up interpreting them