I’m using Activities as beefed up workspaces to better separate personal stuff and work stuff. And to have different icons and wallpapers. It can be handy and useful on a psychological level imo to have a work activity where I just stick to work and have my work tools in favourities and taskbar and when I’m taking a break or stopping for the day, I can easily switch to free time activity. And I can seamlessly jump between the two and stop what I’m doing and leave everything open without crowding the taskbar or something.
So consider this blog post notice that the feature is at risk of being eventually removed if people don’t step up to contribute technical work to either fix existing bugs, or else overhauling the feature to work differently.
I’d be sad to see it removed completely. I hope they keep it, even if it is left to that “power user” niche.
Personally, I’d like to see Activities morph into a feature whereby each activity has a separate set of settings and config data, but access to all the same user files. On top of that, you would be able to configure individual apps you use in multiple activities (like music players) to use shared settings and config data.This way it would basically be the “profiles” feature that many web browsers have now, but applied automatically to any and all apps you want.
Well this is one reason why young voters aren’t taken seriously. They don’t vote or basically waste their vote so no reason to pander or even campaign for their votes.
Trojan Horse - A mythological, giant wooden horse, supposedly used by the Greeks to invade the city of Troy. Actual horses are composed, like any other animal, out of meat, bone, and other tissues and bodily fluids.[citation needed] In addition, the interior of the Trojan Horse was composed of Greek warriors rather than horse innards.
I’m not sure if you meant that it was denied or just that it hasn’t become a member (yet). First one isn’t true but second one is. The process is ongoing and they’ll fairly likely become a member at some point, like mentioned.
I just do not see sufficient evidence that Finland was under a threat that was only deterred by US military spending.
We were close to NATO for a long time but felt that actual war in Europe and Russia attacking was too unlikely for us to actually join. Russia had to come and dispel that fantasy.
NATO isn’t supposed to be the only thing preventing it but it sure does bring us security that it won’t happen and if it in some unthinkable scenario did, we wouldn’t be left alone to fight it.
Looking at Russia and how they’ve generally treated their neighbors, saying that NATO has saved Eastern Europeans from trouble is a fairly believable argument IMO. Just look at those who didn’t join and what has happened with them. But of course it’s what ifs.
When was that? I don’t see when they were denied membership. They wanted into a partnership program that would’ve made them a member, Russian minded president shelved that idea, it was raised again when Russia annexed Crimea and it’s still ongoing.
“At the 2008 Bucharest Summit, the Allies agreed that Georgia and Ukraine will become members of NATO in future.”
“At NATO’s 2023 Vilnius summit it was decided that Ukraine would no longer be required to participate in a Membership Action Plan before joining the alliance.”
Though IIRC you can’t join during an active conflict. That’s sorta the thing, you need to be a member beforehand to reap the benefits. When it happens, then it’s too late. That’s why after Russian attack into Ukraine, Finland and Sweden got such a hurry about it.