sudo systemctl reboot --firmware

shutdown /r /t 0 /fw

These reboot directly into BIOS.

For Windows CMD+R menu, run it by pressing CTRL+SHIFT+Enter (elevates to admin). You may have to do it twice for some unknown reasons after reinstalling the OS.

Another option is to ignore all files and selectively allow the ones you want to track. That's what I'm doing now.

> Files describing how to do IPC with current processes. They belong to ~/.local/state not .config.

XDG_RUNTIME_DIR (i.e.: /run/user/1000)

It doesn't have it as a language feature, but it does have VTables just like C would. The `std.mem.Allocator` is an example of this.

I'll daydream with you except mine is different. The optimal social media in my view is one tied to your real identity. Moderation would only be applied under court order by the relevant jurisdiction for the view of the content within that jurisdiction. i.e.:

1) American posts content critical of Indian officials. That content is restricted by order of an Indian court and no such order is additionally given by an American court. It would be hidden from view within India but not from within America. The inverse would be true.

2) Indian posts content critical of Indian officials. That content is restricted by order of an Indian court. America (or any other nation) has no duty to protect that speech and thus no claim over it. That content is censored everywhere.

Additionally, everyone would have client-side filters which may be published. Emphasis on "published" because the publisher would be accountable for their words just as much as a newspaper within their jurisdiction. Though they wouldn't need to say much (i.e.: list of people I [dis]like). Unique identity and nationality are the only ones I can think of right now. More complex examples:

1) An American publishes a list of politicians who have made inflammatory public statements. They have evidence of this for each person on the list and make no additional assertions about their behavior. People not interested in such content could subscribe to the filter. (I guess people interested in chaos could view the inverse.) No court is willing to censor this list because their statements are protected speech.

2) An American publishes a list of men who have committed sexual crimes (such as in the original post). They assert it as fact not alleged crimes. They include someone who has not been proven in a court of law to have committed that crime. They can be sued for libel and possibly forced to remove the person from the list or reword the list description.

Anonymity between the user and the social media service wouldn't exist, but it might between users. The service could be mandated by the jurisdiction to unmask or otherwise ensure the accused does not fall within the jurisdiction.

Edit: And, when I refresh it's not dead... I don't understand this system apparently.

Additionally, good leaders in an authoritarian system can be more effective. It's just that no one wants to make the gamble for society at large.

It's more or less necessary for grunts where ultimately someone will be mandating another endangers themselves. I don't think modern society has enough bloodthirsty people to field a military completely composed of willing participants. We do have enough that think they're bloodthirsty to field our "voluntary" forces.

Totally tangential, but am I the only one that was taught to put punctuation inside of quotes and now despises that rule?

This just worsens my fear of changing "unnecessary" code when I don't know the original motivation for it.