There’s probably a better way, but the way that works for me is apt show <package> and then copying everything from the Recommended section into an apt install command

Edit: people in forums are suggesting the simpler apt install --reinstall --install-recommends <pkg>.

I find this preferable because it means the recommended packages get marked as auto, which means an uninstall will automatically remove them.

On the other hand, it forces a redownload and install of <package> which might be unwanted. If you want the best of both worlds, you’re going to have to manually install the recommended packages, then also manually apt-mark auto <list of packages>—although that might make them immediately susceptible to an autoremove, so this might require some tweaking; I’ll work it out when I have time.

If you want to always install recommended packages, add APT::Install-Recommends "1"; to your apt.conf (which just includes the --install-recommends option by default, behind the scenes)

As a rule I don’t tell people to RTFM, because it has some rude dismissive connotations, although I will share when it helps me solve a problem I’ve been butting up against that would’ve been solved if I had just read the docs.

That being said, I do encourage people to read the docs, as others’ walkthroughs can be misinformational, and are usually tied to specific setups or software and hardware versions. It requires learning how to wade through a lot of information to find the info you need, but the info is usually guaranteed to be the most current and reliable.

That all being said, I’m more than happy to help when people want it.

Is keeping time one of the services you provide, or do you just get bent out of shape if people don’t respond to you immediately?

No thankss, I got tired of being surrounded by people like you

Matrix very recently has had e2ee calling since at least last april

I don’t host a server currently, so I can’t fully recommend it without knowledge of the backend, but i’m liking the experience as a user

Just looked at Session, and holy shit is that a massive downside…

From their own whitepaper:

Through the integration of a blockchain network, Session adds a financial requirement for anyone wishing to host a server on the network, and thus participate in Session’s message storage and routing architecture.

So you have to pay to self-host, and that’s somehow an upside???

This staking system provides a defence against Sybil attacks by limiting attackers based on the amount of financial resources they have available.

Which is a fine explanation in a world where everyone has a relatively equal amount of wealth. This is the epitome of dunning-kruger economics: a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Firstly, the need for attackers to buy or control Session Tokens to run Session Nodes creates a market feedback loop which increases the cost of acquiring sufficient tokens to run large portions of the network. That is, as the attacker buys or acquires more tokens and stakes them, removing them from the circulating supply, the supply of the Session Token is decreased while the demand from the attacker must be sustained. This causes the price of any remaining Session Tokens to increase, creating an increasing price feedback loop which correlates with the scale of the attack

So the more nodes a single entity holds, the harder it becomes for other entities to buy nodes and break the monopoly? Did you take 3 seconds to think this through???

Secondly, the staking system binds an attacker to their stake, meaning if they are found to be performing active attacks, the underlying value of their stake is likely to decline as users lose trust in the protocol, or could be slashed by the network, increasing the sunk cost for the attacker.

“Assuming every user is a perfectly rational actor, malicious actors would be shunned. This is somehow due to the economic incentive, and not just how humans operate when they’re assumed to be perfectly rational.”

Also: malicious actors when they find out they might lose their money if they get caught: “welp, I better not do that then. Thanks laissez-faire capitalism!”

Jesus christ fucked on a pike, these dipshits really drank the crypto kool-aid, huh?

If my responses are as stimulating to you as yours are to me, why tf do you keep responding?

Thank you for proving my point

So there are words I can say that get you to immediately stop listening to anything else I say and make broad assumptions about me and my beliefs?

Talk about being trained

Picking apart the single definition used by one entity doesn’t mean the term itself is completely meaningless.

But fine, I’ll bite, just for fun:

the use of strong central power to preserve the political status quo

That’s every country

That’s “whataboutism.” Or alternatively, it’s “authoritarian realism”—a term I just made up which refers to any view that assumes a nation has to centralize powers to exist because that’s how the world under capitalism currently operates.

Reductions from what? The USSR was an increase in all of those things from Tsarist Russia.

So 1. You just gave a counterexample to your first point, and 2. I guess the metric depends on who you ask. It could be reductions from a historical state (as we could say of e.g. the current USA compared to North America’s political systems prior to european colonization), or compared to some standard of liberty (e.g. your use of USSR).

I can agree with your first point and still posit that the term is meaningful: e.g. authoritarianism isn’t a binary state of extistence, but rather a spectrum that different states can be compared on; all states can be authoritarian to some degree, but some states are more or less authoritarian than others.

Or to put it another way, saying “authoritarianism” is meaningless because all states exercise authority is like saying “conservativism” is meaningless because all living creatures seek to conserve resources (to some degree).

I agree that language is an imperfect map for the real world we inhabit—and I especially agree that the language (as with any social tool) gets abused to manipulate people—but I don’t agree that those facts make the terms completely useless in communication.

In most instances, “authoritarianism” is a more rigidly defined term than simply meaning “exercises authority.”

E.g. Wikipedia defines it as

a political system characterized by the rejection of political plurality, the use of strong central power to preserve the political status quo, and reductions in democracy, separation of powers, civil liberties, and the rule of law.