I think there's no convention where you "should" mount permanent non-removable partitions. Just don't use /media or /mnt for that (per convention). So create any directory yourself for that and mount them there.

Clickbaity titles on videos or news sites is the new standard. I watched it. The point he's making is basically that music was harder to make/produce some 50 years ago, so there was more incentive to "make it worth the effort", compared to today. And the 2nd point he makes is that music consumption is now so easy as well (listen to whatever you want instantly) compared to when you could only listen to something when you bought the physical album, that there's also less incentive for the listener to really get involved into some albums.

Personally I think these are valid points on the surface but they are not "the answer" to this kind of multi-faceted question. They're at best a factor but we don't know how big these factors are. Also I think one big reason he thinks that way is because he grew up in that environment and so he has a bias for "owning physical copies of albums".

I also think music hasn't gotten worse, the market is just simply over-saturated because there's just way too much music, you'll never be able to listen to it all. And there are absolutely hidden gems or really good bands/artists forming even today, it's just much harder to find them. Generally a problem of today's age: it's likely that what you're looking for already exists, you just have to find it within a whole ocean of content.

If you're looking for innovative or non-standard stuff, you can always look at smaller artists or the indie scene, same is true for movies, games, music. The big producers always have a tendency to stick to what works and what's proven to be popular so everything becomes similar. But smaller artists do not have to care about such things, they are ready to risk much more and in doing so, you might just create a real gem or something that was never or almost never tried before.

Yes. It’s basically about a ban or circumvention of E2EE, as usual. And as usual, this is not an option. Do not throw away your rights to strong, working encryption. Never.

• Closed source (has always been bad for an OS, a 1-US-company controlled blackbox at the heart of your "personal" computer)
• Privacy nightmares (and getting worse)
• Forced cloud integrations (and getting worse)
• Forced AI integrations (and getting worse)
• More bloat and ads (and getting worse)
• More restrictions (e.g. local user accounts) (and getting worse)
• More dark patterns to try to annoy the user and get him/her to accept something that MS wants (and getting worse)
• More opt-out, on-by-default bad stuff being added (and getting worse)
• There's probably more...

The question is wrong: it's not why do you "still" hate Windows. I did like Windows 7. It was the last Windows I liked. After that, it's just a downhill enshittification spiral. The only real question is: at which point will it be too oppressive for the common user that even the most common user will try to avoid it entirely. And I fear that there's still more than enough room for MS to make Windows worse before enough people migrate away from it.

The "opposite" was just referring to those 2 aspects - Mullvad has stronger anti-fingerprinting which leads to more breakage. Librewolf has that aspect reversed. Of course, both browsers are similar overall. That's just one detail where they prioritize differently.

Arch is not at all problematic, however if you're still inexperienced with Linux in general, there might be smaller issues with some packages which might be unsolvable or hard to solve in that particular case (but any experienced user can easily solve those by e.g. downgrading the problematic package until a fix is available, or by restoring a filesystem snapshot). My current Arch installation is almost 5 years old and I only had a couple of very minor individual package update issues, and one time where the system couldn't boot anymore after an update, which could be desastrous for a newbie, but only for a newbie. So, any talk about Arch being unstable is most likely exaggerated. Windows 11 these days has more update failures than Arch, and Arch updates almost daily. Yes, Arch is not "perfectly stable" due to it being rolling release and receiving updates almost daily, but on the desktop or notebook that "less-than-perfect-stability" really doesn't matter much unless you have some kind of allergy against breaking changes or spending 15-30min to fix something or get annoyed if you have to reboot. The fast updates and generally very up to date packages generally more than make up for the disadvantages. At least on the desktop and notebook. I'm not sure if I could recommend Arch on servers. Also, you should at least update Arch once a week (or more often). If you don't update for multiple weeks, then updates might fail because Arch assumes that everyone is on or close to the most current updates. Or you might have to first update the pacman-keyring before updates work again. In any case, updating often is also a way to keep Arch more stable. If you don't like updating often, don't use Arch.

Not generally, however you might want to avoid any early dot-zero releases (e.g. 6.0.x). These tend to be a bit buggy with KDE Plasma, but the bugs get fixed soon. NVidia drivers should be better with the very latest updates, they are supposed to work well on Wayland now. But I don't buy Nvidia, just AMD, so I'm not following this stuff closely.

Both are good. Librewolf is more like vanilla Firefox, just configured way better by default. Mullvad Browser is like a port of the Tor Browser (also based on Firefox) for the clear web (or for use with Mullvad's VPN, or whatever). Also configured very well by default. Mullvad Browser has better anti fingerprinting stuff built-in but as a result of its unusual configuration some sites might be broken. Librewolf is kind of the opposite in that regard - sites won't be broken but you'll be easier to fingerprint. In any case, they both are at the top of the best Firefox variants I'd say.

Let's say you want to compile and install a program for yourself from its source code form. There's generally a lot of choice here:

You could (theoretically) use / as its installation prefix, meaning its binaries would then probably go underneath /bin, its libraries underneath /lib, its asset files underneath /share, and so on. But that would be terrible because it would go against all conventions. Conventions (FHS etc.) state that the more "important" a program is, the closer it should be to the root of the filesystem ("/"). Meaning, /bin would be reserved for core system utilities, not any graphical end user applications.

You could also use /usr as installation prefix, in which case it would go into /usr/bin, /usr/lib, /usr/share, etc... but that's also a terrible idea, because your package manager respectively the package maintainers of the packages you install from your distribution use that as their installation prefix. Everything underneath /usr (except /usr/local) is under the "administration" of your distro's packages and package manager and so you should never put other stuff there.

/usr/local is the exception. It's where it's safe to put any other stuff. Then there's also /opt. Both are similar. Underneath /usr/local, a program would be traditionally split up based on file type - binaries would go into /usr/local/bin, etc. - everything's split up. But as long as you made a package out of the installation, your package manager knows what files belong to this program, so not a big deal. It would be a big deal if you installed it without a package manager though - then you'd probably be unable to find any of the installed files when you want to remove them. /opt is different in that regard - here, everything is underneath /opt//, so all files belonging to a program can easily be found. As a downside, you'd always have to add /opt// to your $PATH if you want to run the program's executable directly from the commandline. So /opt behaves similar to C:\Program Files\ on Windows. The other locations are meant to be more Unix-style and split up each program's files. But everything in the filesystem is a convention, not a hard and fast rule, you could always change everything. But it's not recommended.

Another option altogether is to just install it on a per-user basis into your $HOME somewhere, probably underneath ~/.local/ as an installation prefix. Then you'd have binaries in ~/.local/bin/ (which is also where I place any self-writtten scripts and small single scripts/executables), etc. Using a hidden directory like .local also means you won't clutter your home directory visually so much. Also, ~/.local/share, ~/.local/state and so on are already defined by the XDG FreeDesktop standards anyway, so using ~/.local is a great idea for installing stuff for your user only.

Hope that helps clear up some confusion. But it's still confusing overall because the FHS is a historically grown standard and the Unix filesystem tree isn't really 100% rational or well-thought out. It's a historically grown thing. Modern Linux applications and packaging strategies do mitigate some of its problems and try to make things more consistent (e.g. by symlinking /bin to /usr/bin and so on), but there are still several issues left over. And then you have 3rd party applications installed via standalone scripts doing what they want anyway. It's a bit messy but if you follow some basic conventions and sane advice then it's only slightly messy. Always try to find and prefer packages built for your distribution for installing new software, or distro-independent packages like Flatpaks. Only as a last resort you should run "installer scripts" which do random things without your package manager knowing about anything they install. Such installer scripts are the usual reason why things become messy or even break. And if you build software yourself, always try to create a package out of it for your distribution, and then install that package using your package manager, so that your package manager knows about it and you can easily remove or update it later.

Yeah, but a sizeable increase is still very important. These days, Mastodon, Lemmy and so on have decently sized communities everywhere so that you don't feel like just talking to yourself and a couple of friends anymore. And that's kind of a tipping point.

"Mass migrations" happen slowly, anyway. A lot of people are very hesitant to leave big social hubs just because of the value there is in having so many people around. But in the end, you have to. We can't stay on these proprietary social networks forever. Social networks and communication channels in general need to be non-proprietary, decentralized and open, without the ability of companies manipulating what you see and don't see. And without risk of losing everything when the one big company falls. It's a fundamental problem of all proprietary social networks.

Already did. Purged all my Reddit bookmarks and account.

Generally: You have to be the change you want to see in the world. If you want to change others, change yourself first. I don't think the mindset "I need to reach that big number of people over there so I'll just be over there as well to teach them" works, or leads to the goal you want. Even though it seems reasonable at first glance. This mindset just leads to you giving the other people AND yourself more reason to never leave from there. Which is contrary to what you want. If you want others to switch to better alternatives, move yourself first, help grow the alternatives, and they will sooner or later also become interested in joining. Things like the latest Reddit and Twitter fiascos also show that no huge proprietary social media platform rules forever. The time to change to better alternatives has never been better than now.