I absolutely don't know it. Reading comprehension is being able to accurately describe what's written; not inferring insinuations and presenting them as fact. You can't even get your first sentence right. DHH doesn't say London is now full of brown people; he says London is no longer full of native Brits. If you look at the chart in the article he links to, you'll notice that many (not quite most) of the immigrants he's talking about are white; but you presume they must be brown. Then you see a subset of Pakistanis mentioned and it just reinforces your cognitive bias.

Try to empty your mind of these preconceptions and read the article again.

> And the point about confusing nations and states is salient, because that is exactly what nationalists do.

Where does DHH do that in the article? Please provide an actual quote this time instead of some vague interpretation.

I'm still unclear what point you're trying to make about nations in the first place anyway. Earlier you said:

> Re nation: a nation is the socially constructed identity I was talking about. It can be mono- or multicultural, and people from other cultures may be integrated, it's all vibes-based depending on the nation. But one thing is clear, if you're born into a culture you are part of the culture, and so through a civic nationalist logic you are automatically part of that nation. Also note that nation does not equal state or country.

So if a nation can be made up of multiple potentially divergent cultures then it's clearly not tied to culture. If it's not tied to state either, then is it just tied to region? If it is, then what value does a nation even have? Why even name it? Britain is a state and a nation. Does that make it nationalist? Is it therefore a lost cause to begin with, as far as you're concerned?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you're from mainland Europe, because your concept of nationhood seems to be rooted in European nationalism.

They're mostly feelings (which is what I said above), but there are plenty of facts in that article as well.

> The "Pakistani rape gangs" targeting "white british girls" and trying to tie brown people to increasing theft is made specificly to paint brown people as dangerous.

Where does DHH say that the characteristics of the Pakistani rape gangs extend to all brown people, or even to all Pakistanis? You've made that leap all by yourself. And his remark on phone theft doesn't make reference to race at all; nor does the article he links to. They were just talking about the rise in crime, and you again added the racial element yourself. Instead he's criticising the police, firstly for not dealing with the rise in crime, and secondly for their authoritarian behaviour.

As for what he doesn't mention, that doesn't make him far right any more than your failure to acknowledge his points about authoritarianism makes you far right.

> A nation is not a state, it cannot be democratic. A nation is a socially constructed group identity, it's not the same as your country. A state can be multinational, as the UK is.

You're very good at being pedantic on points that don't further the conversation. I think you know what I was getting at. If you don't, please ask for clarity. Otherwise, perhaps you could address the point directly rather than deflect from it.

> Racist ideology, and the very idea of races, comes from right wing ideas like nationalism and colonialism

That's your assertion and I doubt it very much; moreso given the very obvious racism that's been peddled by the left that I mentioned in a previous comment, and that you refuse to acknowledge. And what makes you think colonialism is a right wing idea? Have you never heard of The Soviet Union? Or is that the right kind of empire? More likely, racist ideology is as old as the human race, and is a simple manifestation of tribalism.

But you're right at least that, since the far left have been slandering everyone to the right of Mao as far right - especially if they're a liberal, the real far right are now able to hide in plain sight.

But I'm really not interested in having an argument about which of these rancid ideologies is worse. Frankly, they're largely indistinguishable to me, and are both equally detestable.

> The left is interested in combating these ideas

Some of us are. Some right wingers are as well. Others of us want to use race to sow division. (Did I get it right this time?) And those people, as far as I'm concerned, are the worst kind of racists because they mask it behind feigned compassion. At least the far right are honest about their superiority complex.

I didn't read it that way at all. I certainly didn't see him "painting brown people as criminal". I read it predominantly as the musings of a man afraid to lose his culture in the same way the Cockneys lost theirs. Now it's my experience that most fears are exaggerated - and perhaps his fears are exaggerated - but that doesn't mean they aren't legitimate. At the very least, they need to be heeded, because - as no one famous ever said - feelings don't care about your facts.

> a nation is the socially constructed identity I was talking about. It can be mono- or multicultural, and people from other cultures may be integrated

...or they may not be...

> But one thing is clear, if you're born into a culture you are part of the culture, and so through a civic nationalist logic you are automatically part of that nation.

All that is true, but as you just pointed out, there is not only one culture, so which culture are you born into, and is it compatible with the other cultures you have to live with? A nation also has to function; and for a democratic nation to function, it has to be united on the fundamentals. Regardless of the cause, it is quite clear to me that a good deal of trust has now broken down between different communities in my country. That needs to be addressed, not lazily dismissed as mere racism.

And leftists in particular have no business dismissing it as mere racism; because, if we want to get into causes, I'd just like to remind everyone reading this that the idea that we can and should divide and categorise people by their race has been aggressively and exclusively pushed for the last decade or more - and successfully mainstreamed - by the left. Now we all have to reap what they've sewn.

I've never seen him even imply this; and I'm afraid I simply presume accusations of racism on the internet to be false and malicious unless they come with hard evidence.

> Identifying with your tribe is a completely different idea. Your tribe (or nation) is not defined by ethnicity, but by culture.

Fine, I can go with that. Does that mean that people from other cultures are not of this nation?

> no such group as the English existed before the Anglo-Saxons arrived.

Who built Stonehenge? If you're just being pedantic (and your next reply is likely to be something like "the word English is derived from Angle"), then let's instead refer to them as the peoples who already inhabited the British Isles.

> You've outdone you previous self-contradiction speedrun, now the contradiction is in the same sentence.

I honestly don't know what this sentence means.

For me the term has specific far-right connotations; specifically the persecution, or desire to persecute, non-nationals or non-indigenous (or whatever term you'd like to use for the most ancient and rooted culture of a nation).

Your definition is apparently different: what is it?

Btw, the Anglo Saxons did not replace the native English; they were ultimately assimilated into the tribes they conquered. Many (most?) English can trace their genes back to the earliest settlers.

> However, that’s a big “if”, since most of the linux sandbox thingies take multiple seconds to spawn a process, and multiply memory usage by 10-100x.

And this is the thing I'm not willing to accept. Well, I can tolerate excessive memory consumption depending on what I'm doing, but I refuse to entertain long boot times. It's the main reason I avoid Java apps, Flatpacks, and so on.

My experience with making an app work consistently across browsers is that it's hard work. Making it also work consistently with each OS it runs on is considerably harder. You want to guess how many times I've been asked to even consider either of those two things by a manager, let alone make them a priority? Never.

And going by my experience as a user of browser-based software, I'd say that's pretty normal across the industry.

And that's to say nothing of the fact that these apps are typically slow, cumbersome (by which I mean they throttle my CPU and drain my laptop battery), and crash no less frequently than unsafe apps written in unsafe languages like C (despite the fact that that's supposed to be impossible).

It seems to me that you want to rewrite the world in the browser. That doesn't seem very different to me from rewriting the world in Wayland. Whatever the differences between the two, they are insignificant besides the fallacy of rewriting the world.

As for the rest of your reply, I have no idea why you think I owe you however much time it would take me to read however many links you posted above. If you have something relevant to say, say it in the thread. Don't presume to leave it for me as a homework assignment.

> No modern desktop environment is complete without a browser, so since you're stuck with it, why not just use the browser itself as the desktop environment..?

Because I want to use my desktop environment as my desktop environment. I've invested time and energy optimising it for my workflow and I'd like to continue to benefit from using it.

> non-browser desktops aren't as flexible or powerful or extensible as a browser

Again, I don't know what this means. My desktop is literally programmable. As in, I can edit and recompile the source code directly. Please tell me what's more powerful than that.

> they can run across many different platforms,...

I only need my apps to run on one platform

> ...and be easily distributed and efficiently used over the network (unlike Wayland or "modern" X11 apps).

`apt install my-x11-app my-wayland-app` `#include `

How so? I run Electron apps all the time. They behave like any other app.

> Most people don't want to spend hours tweaking Enlightenment themes, or keyboard shortcuts for tiled windows.

Most people don't want to run Linux. And I don't want to waste my free time experimenting with a critical desktop component.

BTW, remember those people who actually make Linux work for the rest of us? Many of them do want to do those things. It's how they got to be Linux contributors in the first place.

If I have to live on your world, I'll probably just chuck it all in and work with my hands for a living instead.

No I don't. X11 works perfectly well for me. Wayland doesn't. Until I can migrate without issue, I'll be sticking with what works. If it gets to a point where Linux becomes unusable for me, I'll just move to an OS that works. Linux isn't the only game in town. Boo hoo.