Always the final resort to “you’re arguing in bad faith”… You have no more idea what motivates me than I have about you, so why bother making this unfalsifiable accusation? Anyway. You have expressed what you don’t understand about my argument, just as I’ve already expressed what I don’t understand about yours, as well as I possibly can. Nobody else is listening. Let’s just leave it there.

Obese means fat, not just overweight. The fact that there are twice as many non-obese among the poor does not make them thin! Unless it’s that people get fatter and fatter as they get poorer, until they get really poor and they suddenly they become skeletal, is that what we’re claiming? This whole talking point makes no sense and you seem rational enough to be able to admit that.

How can there be “huge swathes” of Americans who are “poorer than” the Americans who are so poor that they can only afford junk food and thus explain America’s obesity statistics. This whole talking point makes no sense.

Tell me that you haven’t read 1984. “War is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength”, and today “obesity is hunger”, apparently.

Yes, that was my point. The word “hunger” is being conflated with food insecurity. We all know what “hunger” means, and it is not the same thing as malnutrition or food insecurity. I don’t care if it’s been redefined by NGOs to make a (valid) point more punchy, it’s not the same thing. It’s manipulative Orwellian use of language. That’s all I have to say here.

It doesn’t “surprise” me, it’s a common talking point. I’ve been to America, including the poorer bits. I know the statistics about obesity and social class - do you?

if you are dealing with hunger

Personally I can never get past this line. Malnutrition perhaps, but nobody in the world’s richest, fattest country - where the fattest people are the poorest ones - is dealing with “hunger”. I wish we could just abstain from manipulative Orwellian language.

PS: sure, downvote away to dispel your cognitive dissonance, but that won’t magic away the correlation between poverty and literal obesity in the world’s richest country

PPS: to be clear, “hungry” is either a useless or a manipulative word. Anyone can be “hungry”, no matter how well-fed they are, so in that sense it’s a useless term. In the other sense, meaning calorie-starved, it’s obviously wrong, since the poorest US states (Mississippi et al) are also the fattest. Sorry, but nobody here is thinking straight. The issue is one of nutrition and food security, not hunger.

Sure, images and video are the exception. But I figure that a redshift app can only help so much when a video suddenly cuts to a picture of a white sky. That’s really another problem: choppy contrast. Only solution is to increase ambient light behind the screen.

Use dark mode at night and you won’t need Redshift any more. It’s only relevant for white screens.

PS: This IS in fact the optimal solution - if not for you then for others. I used Redshift for years, suffering its periodic breakages, babysitting the timezone issue, and it was worth it, because a retina-searing reddish-white screen is better than a retina-searing whitish-white screen. But a dark screen is SO much better for my eyes than either of those. I can’t believe I waited so many years to do that and I’m never going back.

Why is this a problem for us and not for ordinary dummies on Android? It’s been the default there for years already.

Absolutely. LUKS full disk encryption. Comes as an opt-in checkbox on Ubuntu, for example.

And I too cannot understand why this is not opt-out rather than opt-in. Apparently we’ve decided that only normies on corporate spyware OSs need security, and we don’t.

Just to clarify this comment for other “total newbies”: yes, the UFW default config is fine and “you don’t need to mess with it”.

But by default UFW itself is not even enabled on any desktop OS. And you also don’t need to mess with that. It’s because the firewall is on the router.

OP said clearly that this “is just my personal computer” and here we all are spreading unintentional FUD about firewall configs as if it’s for a public-facing server.

This pisses me off a bit because I remember having exactly the same anxiety as OP, to the point of thinking Linux must be incredibly insecure - how does this firewall work? dammit it’s not even turned on!! And then I learned a bit more about networking.

This discussion should have begun with the basics, not the minutiae.