My recommendation generally (although the current price of memory makes this more difficult) is to buy a second NVMe drive and install Linux on that. No fussing with a second install on one drive, virtually no risk of Windows thrashing your Linux install or accidentally deleting your Windows data while partitioning, etc. And you can just wipe the drive and install something else if you don’t like it, or use it as storage if you ultimately don’t like Linux.

Somewhat? I used it on Windows pretty extensively, I’ll try to pitch what I liked about it.

Basically, it supports “plugins” that allow it to auto-import games from all kinds of places, such as Steam, GOG, Epic, and even more obscure options like itch.io, or local modded Minecraft instances. It could also auto-scan folders for ROMs, and could be configured to launch those games in an emulator. It also did its own playtime tracking locally, which worked for any of these launchers and options, which was great to have all in one UI.

It also had really cool options, like different “launch actions”, so you could setup commands to run a game modded or launch it vanilla, for example, which was excellent. Really it could be configured with any commands to run before and after starting/stopping any game you can think of.

Not to mention it had the best controller big picture UI on Windows, which I still kinda miss since switching to Bazzite and Steam Big Picture Mode. I was able to access everything I just described with just a controller, once it was configured. Giving it up was truly the hardest part of switching to Linux for me, it’s phenomenal software.

I’m not certain what it will look like on Linux, whether it’ll just integrate with Heroic to launch games through it, or try to reimplement those features. But it’s certainly worth watching, and I’ll definitely give it a look again once they bring their big picture mode to Linux. Quite exciting news for me!

Looking through their history, gotta agree. Second one of these ChatGPT-posters I’ve blocked in two days, and this one even commented on the other post where I ended up blocking the OP.

Really hoping this doesn’t become a recurring trend on Lemmy.

Been using the 8BitDo TMR sticks for a while, and they’re great so far. There’s no super long-term usage yet, the technology just isn’t old enough yet for anyone to have 10+ years of real world usage, but it’s fantastic hardware thus far, and I have faith in it to last as long as I’ll want to use the controllers for, unlike say, my Switch Pro Controllers (which I promptly replaced with 8BitDo controllers with TMR after discovering how bad the drift was on my OG ones).

Yeah, basically the only thing I really use the terminal for is ujust, a series of scripts maintained by Bazzite themselves. And ujust does have a script to install a GUI fan controller app, btw, which I’ve used to setup my own fan curves, and found it pretty darn usable despite it being the first time I’ve done such a thing.

The OS is immutable, so you’re probably right that lower level tasks are harder, but Bazzite themselves have stepped in and created a dedicated command for pretty much anything finicky I’ve thought to do in the past year or so.

Just for further context, here’s the docs page advocating for approximately this order of priority for installing stuff. I found myself returning to this page a lot when getting to grips with Bazzite as my first immutable distro.

Very fair, I can easily understand being uncomfortable with the whole concept of hell. A lot of Christians try to erase it as well, I recall quite the kerfluffle several years back about a book by Rob Bell (Love Wins, IIRC) arguing that God would actually save everyone in Revelations, and Hell wouldn’t actually exist.

Unfortunately, I find it… unconvincing from a Biblical study standpoint. I’d certainly prefer if Rob Bell was right though. Theologian Francis Chan wrote a book in response to that one, disproving it thoroughly but also elaborating a lot on hell (Erasing Hell, IIRC), and I found it really moving, and quite helpful, at the time. Sadly that was too many years ago for me to remember the details. I need to re-read that sometime, and generally do some more study on hell, as I wish I could give a better response on the topic, and also for myself.

For me now… I try to live almost as if it doesn’t exist though. It’s not helpful or kind to bash people over the head with the whole “fire and brimstone” thing, the church proved pretty well that it burns more bridges than it builds anyway, and I don’t need eternal damnation as a motivator to live decently. I’d rather embrace God for the relationship now than out of fear for after I die. I simply don’t give it much thought, which is probably why I’ve forgotten almost all of the theology I knew about the topic.

Anyway, a pleasure to chat with you as well!

Alright, first let me get the fluff out of the way, I think you and I both know I could write similar lengthy comments about the Bible on slavery and sexism. I’m strongly anti-both, and I’ve read the whole Bible, I’m not unaware of anything in there, nor would I try to pretend a verse doesn’t exist.

But I think you’re hitting on a really interesting question, that I’d summarize as “If God is real, then why make himself so scarce? Why not reveal himself clearly, clarify his intentions, and prove himself real to avoid all this suffering?”.

I’ll pose an alternate, rhetorical question that’ll tie in later. Why even create humans at all? God could’ve simply created more angels to worship him, or lived in solitude, or heck, in Genesis terms, he could’ve just not put that apple in the garden for Eve to eat so we could’ve all lived in paradise forever.

The answer I see in the Bible, and my own experience, is that God really wants relationship. He actually wants a relationship based on faith, where you choose to have a relationship with him, not because you have to, but because you want to. We’re supposed to be made in God’s image, and we’ve written tons of fiction about the emptiness and purposelessness of happiness without free will, or the sadness of relationships involving a love potion, or more recently AI, and I kinda think that’s what it’s like.

For God, if he made himself undeniable, he couldn’t have a real relationship with us. We’d have to believe in him and have a relationship, it’d just be stupid not to. So I think that’s why God would make a world with physics and chemistry that don’t need him to function. And that’s why he doesn’t descend in a cloud of lightning and thunder and tell us off for all the dumb stuff we do in his name.

That said, I think it’s really fair to take issue with God from that answer. A lot of people will continue to do terrible things based on snippets of the Bible, and it is unfair how cruel a lot of the world is, and how many people suffer in it that wouldn’t have to with a little more divine intervention. I can’t answer that one for ya, it’s an extremely reasonable reaction, and one I wonder about myself sometimes. Make of it what you will.

I’m not really trying to convince you or anyone else here of anything, except maybe that I’m not an asshole despite believing in the Bible. I certainly don’t have any illusions of persuading someone about something as major as their religion in a comment thread online. It’s been an enjoyable discussion though, and generally respectful, so I’m quite pleased with how it’s gone.

I missed out on Nicole, pleased to be part of the Illuminati! 🔱

So, finally, the verse in question. First thing, I’m looking at the word “abomination” and I’m curious what that is in the original Hebrew, as that’s a loaded word. Here’s the list of everywhere that word appears in the Hebrew. The word is used here, but also in contexts such as “it would be an abomination to an Egyptian to eat with a Hebrew”, unclean animals are described as “abominations”, a sacrifice or prayer offered by a wicked person is an abomination to God, etc. There are some stronger uses of the word, such as using it for adultery or idol worship, but I’m seeing this word originates with the KJV, and I suspect its definition has drifted over time. Other translations, like the NIV choose words like “detestable” or “loathsome” for this. So definitely still not positive words, but that doesn’t read to me in the ultra-harsh way “abomination” does, and it’s also notable that unclean animals, something Paul is later encouraged to eat, is described with the same word.

Looking at this verse, I basically see 3 possible explanations for its inclusion in the Law. I’ll list them:

A) The obvious one, that homosexuality is just plainly frowned upon, and was always meant to be interpreted as wrong. Not an unreasonable reading, although point B from my previous comment still applies, protests and harassment are unjustifiable.

B) That this may be a health thing, similar to unclean animals. After all, we saw with the AIDS epidemic a health issue that swept through gay men most of all, largely because of a lack of healthcare resources that certainly wouldn’t have been around in B.C.

C) The one I personally find most likely, is that this had to do with God’s desire to see Israel and humanity grow in population. Abraham was promised descendants “as numerous in the stars in the sky”, and this is fairly close to the Genesis commission to “be fruitful and multiply” and to “fill the whole earth and subdue it”.

These days, I consider the earth to be pretty well filled, so I don’t believe those commands apply too much to us now. The Christian sects that always try to have 10+ kids strike me as weird too, I don’t feel any obligation to procreate like that.

Alright, let me wrap up here. My feelings on Biblical law are clearly complex, but to be clear, this is a good part of the case to be made that homosexuality isn’t godly, and you’re right to point it out, but still doesn’t sway me, for all the reasons I explained in my first comment on it. This is still part of what I’d described as the Bible’s “remarkable silence” on the topic of homosexuality.

A law in Leviticus is not nearly as persuasive as it would be if Jesus had spoken on the topic, for example. Or simply, more instances of the topic being directly addressed in scripture. This also still doesn’t bring much clarity about modern homosexuals in marriage, etc. There’s a lot of clear biblical disdain for casual sex, so a lot of gay culture like Grindr isn’t ever going to get a Biblical thumbs up, just like Tinder hookups don’t. So forbidding that kind of sexual activity is expected, but there are explicit examples of forbidden marriages in this list of laws about sex, such as marrying your sister, but a man marrying a man or woman marrying a woman isn’t mentioned.

But ultimately, my entire rant from the previous comment still stands. Even if Jesus had outright and directly said “any form of homosexuality, no matter how monogamous and loving, is tantamount to murder” 20+ times, the way much of the church has behaved would still be biblically unacceptable. In the sermon on the mount, the most detailed example of Jesus’s direct teaching we have, he tells us that all sins are equal. That to even look at a woman with lust, to think an angry thought about someone, is a crime worthy of death. And so we’re all equal. I’m just as sinful and “bad” as you, as any murderer, as anyone who’s done any sin you can name. So any church that picks a “pet sin” to focus on like this, whether it be sex and drugs, dungeons and dragons, rock music, or homosexuality and gender diversity, it’s done in direct contradiction to Jesus’s direct and plain teaching, in his most important and repeated message. It can be correct to call out sin in love, but this isn’t what that looks like.

Alright, finally done with an Old Testament perspective on the law. I wanted to make a case separately from an NT perspective, because I know the obvious response to an NT-focused position here is “that’s the same God you worship now, you still believe in a God that set this law for thousands of years”.

In the New Testament, Jesus takes a really interesting stance on the law. First of all, he breaks it, as the Pharisees understand it, constantly. However, he always has a Biblical argument for doing so, and consistently leaves the Pharisees befuddled and frustrated when they accuse him of this.

Additionally, as a Gentile, the NT is clear that we are not beholden to the OT law. This is a surprisingly well-discussed issue, as it seems the early church was often followed by a group of Jewish Christians that would persuade new churches that they were beholden to the law, and had to be circumcised, etc. So Paul’s letters frequently have to correct this stance, when he contacts the churches he’s planted. Even for Jews, Paul himself has a vision where he’s told to eat unclean animals, and soon after participates in a feast that sees more people brought into the church.

There’s also a really interesting moment with Jesus, when a woman is set to be stoned because she was found cheating on her husband, and is brought to Jesus. And Jesus tells the crowd gathered to stone her, “let he who is without sin, throw the first stone”. Slowly, the whole crowd leaves, and he tells the woman “If no one will condemn you, then I won’t either. Go, and sin no more.” So there’s this forgiveness and grace brought into the equation, that seems contrary to the harsh punishments described in the original Law, and made more important than that.

So so far this suggests that, hey, as Christians today we can basically ignore the Law. But Jesus actually tells us something more interesting, that he’s not here to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it. In other words, Jesus believes his radical, loving philosophy is what the Law was meant to lead us to all along.

So basically, as a modern Christian, I don’t at all have to obey the Law. I can get tattoos, wear mixed fabrics, and work on Sundays all I like. But the Law is relevant. I try to study it as Jesus did, and understand it as he did, with his radically loving and gracious and kind philosophy. And I don’t always succeed, I’m not going to tell you I have a perfect understanding of every Law and its purpose, but I understand enough that I have faith that there is good explanation for the things I haven’t understood yet, and try to put the work in to understand the things in the OT that do bother me.

Also, I feel like I should add, as a modern Christian with the whole Bible before me, the Law is almost like… a failed experiment. Not that God isn’t omniscient and would be “experimenting”, but the Law clearly doesn’t work. Israel fails to follow it constantly, until the kingdom is split and both halves continue to fail until their exiles. In fact, there are some practices laid out in the laws, such as the Year of Jubilee, that we apparently don’t have historical evidence of ever having happened. The Law needed fulfilling through Christ, because we couldn’t possibly make it work, and that was always the plan for it. So no, I don’t look at modern Israel and see some platonic ideal society because they still try to follow the Law, or anything like that.

Uhh… apparently my reply to this got so long that it can’t be submitted as a single comment, so… reply chain incoming. Breaking it up where I’d originally placed “—”.

Ooh, yes, excellent, let’s talk about Old Testament law, it was remiss of me to not find this for the initial conversation. Apologies in advance, this is going to feel like a lot of avoiding the implied question, but I feel like I have to give a bunch of context around OT law in general before I reply directly, which I promise I will at the end. This is also gonna be pretty disorganized, it’s a big topic that I’m trying to summarize into a comment.

Ok, so let’s start entirely within the Old Testament, with a bit of cultural context we import into our understanding of the Bible, and that’s the idea of “statutory law”. In the modern world, a “law” is something written with extreme clarity, meant to be followed exactly. This is done so that the law can be 100% consistent across an entire massive society, even the globe.

But that’s actually a very modern concept, and isn’t how laws worked for most of human history. Instead of arguing this from OT law, let’s look at a law from the same era, the Code of Hammurabi. This law was extremely common, and went “ancient viral” in a way, according to Wikipedia, copies “were found not only in Susa but also in Babylon, Nineveh, Assur, Borsippa, Nippur, Sippar, Ur, Lars, and more”. Feel free to read the “Theories of Purpose” for far more evidence on this.

But the way this kind of law worked is that it was more like a list of examples of judgements, rather than direct legal code in the modern sense. For example, in a law like this, you couldn’t have tax lawyers, who interpret and manipulate the exact phrasing cleverly to avoid paying anything. Rather, a judge would deem you in violation of the spirit of the law and tax you accordingly. This also works in reverse, where circumstances could lessen a sentence or even leave you as innocent. In many ways, it’s an enviable system, although it’d obviously be impractical and abused in a modern context.

Second random topic, the law in the Old Testament actually doesn’t function primarily as a law. It’s part here as law, part here as narrative. Much of the law is given right before we’re shown Israel breaking that law, for example. In addition, it’s not nearly enough law for a society to function. The Old Testament only includes ~600 laws, and Jews would quickly have to infer more than 5000 laws based on the principles shown in the laws that were given.

The law was also not intended as a final state. I gave an example earlier of a law changing when it was first given before it was given again later. And Jews did debate the principles set forth in the law and push them further over time, taking concepts that were progressive in Biblical times, and making them more progressive later. Again, it’s not statutory law, it’s the principle behind it that matters more than the letter.

And the law was also intended for an ancient Jewish people, in that time. There are cases where the law doesn’t “rock the boat”, so to speak, but clearly points things in a more progressive direction than where it was, and what’s explicitly described in the law is never espoused going forward. Let me give an example, of a law that sounds horrifying. There’s a biblical law that states, if a city is taken in war, and a soldier sees a pretty woman on the battlefield, they can take her as spoils of war and bring her home and marry her. I think we can all agree this isn’t a nice thing to do. But let’s compare it to the standard of the time, where it was common to rape women in a city you’ve captured. Compared to the standard, the law now states, ok, you can kind of do this. But you must take her with you, and not violently rape her then and there. Instead, she travels in your tent, and you must bring her home after the campaign, give her a month to mourn, and marry her, guaranteeing to take care of her as your own, making her your dependent. You are also forbidden from selling her as a slave in this situation, if you decide not to marry her.

So what I see here is not a standard which I want to live by in the current day, but I see a law meeting an accepted practice of the day and saying “this has to change for the better”. The principles I believe are being espoused here is that women are not objects, and rape is not an acceptable “crime of passion”. I think a Jew studying this would infer such crazy things from this shifting of the rules as “rape is not ok” and “women need to be treated with respect”.

Ok, final diatribe on Old Testament law. A lot of it is regarding “ritual purity”. As a modern reader, familiar with germs and hygiene, I don’t think it’s wild to ask if, given I believe an all-knowing God gave this law, if a lot of these aren’t intended to prevent the spread of diseases. Let’s look at some of the things that make you ritually unclean, for which the cure for is, essentially, isolation from others, and a bath. Touching a dead human or animal, having a period, touching blood, touching someone unclean. Even the unclean animals are ones like cows and pigs, which we’ve known to give us many deadly plagues and diseases through history. This is more a suspicion than anything I’m proposing as dead-serious religious study, but I find it remarkable how good a lot of these arbitrary-seeming ritual purity laws would be at preventing plagues in a society that doesn’t properly understand germs.

Do you give this impassioned speech when you hear Christians use the book to justify their oppression of others? These days, particularly queer folk?

Absolutely I do! Let’s grab that framework I described earlier, and apply it to LGBTQIA+. I’m gonna break this into two questions:

A) Is being gay a “sin”. B) Is it right to protest/harass/whatever queer people.

To start with A, let’s do a quick check of mentions of homosexuality in the Bible. There is shockingly little here. Virtually nothing. But let’s look at possibly the most popular instance to cite, in Sodom. Sodom is a horrifying Old Testament story, where an Angel disguises himself as a traveller and visits a city, being invited into a home. All the town gathers and demands the traveller be released to them, so they can rape him. Instead, the host gives them his daughter, who they rape to death. The whole town is then destroyed for its sinfulness. So this is… an unflattering association with homosexuality. But, there’s clearly a lot more going on here too. To blame this on just homosexuality is obviously a stretch.

So let’s look for other examples. As a Christian and not a Jew, Jesus is considered the highest authority, so anything he says directly should be considered very important. So does he mention it? Not even once, as far as I’m aware. Perhaps he’s just unaware? Well, looking at historical context, he’s living in the Roman Empire, which is pretty famously gay, as tumblr delights to point out. So I find it highly unlikely that Jesus wouldn’t have had opportunity to comment, and yet he never bothers, or at least the apostles never bothered to record it.

So there’s shockingly little said on the topic, and nearly nothing direct. Some will point to verses about “nature” and marriage, but that sounds to me like you’re bringing your own conclusions in first, and have already decided what those words mean, rather than looking to the text and ancient Jewish culture to define them. In cases where it’s condemned, it’s usually muddled with lots of other horrifying sins. As far as a modern gay marriage goes, with two people committed to one another in a loving relationship, I don’t see that described anywhere in the Bible, and personally don’t find much basis to take issue with it.

At the bare minimum, I think it’s crystal clear this isn’t an important issue. This isn’t terribly scientific, but just opening Bible Gateway and searching the word “homosexual” in the NIV, I get 1 result, from a letter written to Timothy where it’s mentioned in a list of “things contrary to sound doctrine”. Searching “divorce”, I get 33. “Adultery”? 45. So any church with a divorcee that can’t tolerate gays? Deeply hypocritical. There’s also 49 results for “judge not” while we’re at it.

–

As for B, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to look at what I’ve presented above and conclude that it it’s not godly. There isn’t anything really pro-queer to be found either. And fair enough, I can understand if, say, a pastor isn’t comfortable performing a gay marriage in their church. (sidebar, it’s ridiculous that legal marriage and “Christian marriage” somehow became the same thing. The church should have no opinions on who non-Christians live with and how they’re taxed accordingly).

What I cannot understand is how you take the thin evidence presented above, and conclude it’s enough to consider it acceptable to disregard the overwhelming themes of love and acceptance, of not judging, of having grace, and conclude that this issue merits such insane and unacceptable behaviour. To do so signals in bright crimson that you’ve discarded any pretence of letting the Bible guide you, and are fully allowing your politics and feelings to drive your interpretation of the Bible. Jesus loved prostitutes and cheating tax collectors, but you’re telling me he would’ve harassed any gay he found, when he doesn’t even bother to mention the topic?

It actually pisses me off to an incredible degree, that I even have to talk about this issue, that these people mar the church constantly with such evil behaviour, and that Christianity is so deeply associated with such vehement hate and psychotic anti-human politics. I’d far rather a world of more atheists and agnostics than this type of “Christian”. At least they own their ideas rather than pretending they’re Biblical and handwaving any refutation. It’s indefensible.

–

To be crystal clear, I wish the Bible gave me a clearer signal that gender is a construct, that love is love, and all of that. I have very close relationships with gay and bi people in my life. The topic is near and dear to my heart, so I’ve spent some time digging into it. I really don’t love how inconclusive and wishy washy part of this comment sounds. But I don’t want to hide that, which is why I tackled it first in this comment, before getting to the part people will like more. This is what I find studying the text, and I have to live with that to have any intellectual and spiritual honesty whatsoever.

I believe the Bible should make you uncomfortable sometimes, it should challenge you and force you to reconcile some things. If it doesn’t, you’re probably forcing your own conclusions into it rather than actually reading it. Read properly, it will ask you to be radically generous, and radically kind. It will tell you that hating someone is tantamount to murdering them, that your little “white lie” sins and habits, like gossiping, are just as serious as the sins of the people you hate most. It tells you that you’ll suffer, but that you aren’t allowed to hate your enemies, and that bad things will happen that you can’t do anything about as well as good things. It’s not a fun mirror to look at, and it should challenge you and make you uncomfortable and force you to grow.

Isn’t this all rather convenient?

I do my best, as someone studying it, to read it as an ancient Jewish reader would, as that’s the original, intended audience. That’s why my #2 and #3 is all about how the authors of the Bible saw contradictions and accepted them. That is absolutely more of an art than a science sometimes, but I try to remove my own perspective and desires for what I want the Bible to say as I read it, and then figure out what I want to do with that later.

The way I would personally weigh out an apparent contradiction is through study. How many times is a thing referenced? Does it contradict major themes or ideas? Is there any relevant historical context to this passage, such as it being a letter to a specific church? What’s the broader context of the passage itself, within the book and a few chapters around? Usually a “correct” answer becomes pretty clear through this process.

As for anyone justifying anything, they sure as hell can, and I’ve watched them do it. My #1 red flag, for anyone attending any church, is that any church worth its salt will encourage you to read the book yourself, ask questions, and that doubting and challenging things is encouraged. You cannot purely let someone else tell you what’s in there, because it’s a big book, and full of narratives of characters doing all sorts of things. The Bible is really meant to be understood as a whole work, and not cherry-picked passages.

Hey, thanks! I really appreciate you being one of the first comments here. It’s always a bit risky to come out on the side of religion, as a lot of people have had terrible experiences with “Christians” and churches, and so understandably are pretty passionately against anything religious.

That said, I’ve always had a pretty respectful experience on Lemmy, just by really trying my best to add some value and detail. After all, a one-sided conversation is pretty boring.

Alright, I’ll bite and be devil’s advocate here.

As someone who has studied the Bible fairly closely and cares about it, this is no surprise. I’ll give a few scattered points here, and you’ll also have to pardon me, as this is from the top of my head, I only have so much time to burn on this today.

#1 The Bible is not first and foremost a “historical documentary” in the modern sense. The very idea of a historical account striving for objective unbiased reality is fairly recent historically, and the Bible is meant to be a religious text that’s trying to teach you something.

I’ll give an example. At the end of most of the gospels, there’s a Roman guard, who reacts in wonder to the death of Jesus. In each account, he marvels aloud, saying something that caps off the themes of each gospel. As a reader, I don’t believe that each apostle happened to be by a different guard that happened to say the perfect thing. Maybe one apostle saw a guard in the distance with a look on his face? Maybe there was no guard at all? The historical veracity of this detail doesn’t really matter. The story is accurate in the major points, that Jesus died on a cross, etc, but the small details like this are full of embellishments and storytelling. Even in tiny details you wouldn’t expect, details like numbers have symbolic significance. Ancient Jewish readers were aware of what was happening here, and this wasn’t considered a lie or a devastating contradiction just like we don’t think modern writers are liars for using exaggeration, metaphors, and sarcasm.

#2 The Biblical authors are aware there are contradictions. For example, there’s a case where a ritual meal is originally supposed to be boiled. Later, the same meal is described as being roasted. Both of these cases are divine law given by God. I’d argue this change was because Israel was no longer fleeing through the desert, and so could prepare the meal in a slower way.

Much later in the Bible, an especially good King is described as being “so faithful that he roasts his meat in water”. It’s a Biblical author literally cracking a joke about a Biblical contradiction. These moments aren’t some shocking gotcha to any reader paying attention.

#3 The Bible contradicts itself intentionally. It’s an ancient Jewish way of teaching to have two rabbis take different stances, and argue publicly. Often, the truth of something is in the tension between two perspectives.

My favourite book in the Bible is Ecclesiastes, which takes a Nietzsche-esque stance that nothing we do matters, and life is terribly unfair. Bad things happen to good people and vice versa, so simply eat, drink, and be merry. It comes right after Proverbs, which is the classic book everyone quotes from about how doing good things leads to good things. The truth is somewhere in the middle. The books directly contradict, but are both true, being kind often leads to kindness, but life is also often unfair and out of our control. The best way to explain that is to state both sides, and let the reader sit on those two ideas and ponder them.

In summary, this collection of contradictions is a great visualization, and I love it for those obstinate people who are deep in the Dunning-Kruger effect with the Bible. But for those who actually pay attention and study, this isn’t anything revelatory. When someone says the Bible is inerrant and has “no mistakes”, they (hopefully) mean that they believe it’s inspired by God, and everything in it has some value, even if they may not understand every detail. I would hope that they don’t mean that there are literally no contradictory statements, as that’s objectively untrue.

Wow, what a mess. Personally, I’m fine with this degree of telemetry, trying to understand how many people are using your app has obvious value and isn’t a huge concern for me compared to what telemetry usually refers to. This feels like a bit of a “mountain out of a molehill” where the overwhelming quantity of feedback has aggravated the primary dev into being very jaded about the whole topic. I assume he got a lot more flack for this than is still preserved in this thread.

The big thing about Bruno is that nothing is synced to the cloud, so I can use it without worrying about it being a security risk. In addition to being pretty great, and letting me easily distribute a collection in a git repository. For that, it definitely still earns my support as a good tool, whether I’m logged as a “daily active user” or not.

Still, hopefully the main version does get that opt out added, mostly just to remove the black mark from its name and to be properly GDPR compliant.

Haha, you’re not wrong. Ours tend to ebb and flow with whatever urgent priority upper management has set as well, and it tends to take slack alongside our tech debts. Our management is listening and getting better though, I’m hopeful that in a few years we truly will catch up on our tech debts and have all our managed products in good shape at once.

That said, even in that environment, we’ve had some pretty incredible 20% success stories. Some of my own experiments from when I’ve had the time have become proper released features, although I mostly use it to skip the bureaucracy and address my pet peeve tech debts, which isn’t the point but is nice to be able to do. And one of our major internal products, with a large dedicated team and roadmap, began as one developer’s 20% project a few years back.

The best companies will do something like “20% time”, leaving one day a week or something to work on whatever, which is fantastic for stuff like this. Some of your employees almost certainly have the best ideas, if you just trust them with the space to prove them out.

Great way to get cool stuff like this without unpaid labour.

Haha, perfectly valid, thanks for the clarification!

Edit: Just realizing who you are here, and wanted to express my gratitude! Bazzite has been the thing that finally allowed me to feel comfortable ditching Windows on a gaming living room PC, with all my finicky requirements for HDR and a clean controller-driven experience, and it’s been a fantastic decision.