You can override the icon anyway. Instead of using the X app, I have a Firefox shortcut for x.com but it’s called Twitter and has the bird app icon instead of a big X.

Is there a reason it needs to be an app? I was in a similar situation and what worked best for me was just replacing the YouTube app with a Firefox shortcut to YouTube.com. I’m still logged in and the uBlock Origin extension strips the ads out. I think the Sponsorblock extension should also work with this system.

In general I’ve just started replacing apps with annoying ads with either a Firefox webapp or a Firefox shortcut. Works great and reduces the app count on my phone too.

It’s because citrus is acidic, it’s a very common trigger of acid reflux. Same goes for tomatoes, especially in a concentrated form like a sauce.

At the risk of being dogpiled, I’d like to try to have some discussion on this.

Up front, I want to say that Ohio does a lot of dumb shit, trans rights are human rights, and weaponizing random laws against queer people is bullshit.

It seems clear to me that:

• There is a reasonable motivation for requiring reporting of recent name changes, and the exception for marriage is due to this being extremely common. The article states that this usually came up in the past when people wanted to run with a nickname rather than their given name.
• Not stating this requirement on the form is stupid and bad.
• This is compounded by the lack of a box for a former name, practically guaranteeing that this information is omitted.
• All of this is a problem that should be fixed. The Republic governor has acknowledged this, according to a quote from the article.

What isn’t clear to me is that this is selectively enforced against trans people. We only know about the cases where it has happened to trans people because those are the cases that are being reported on. It is not surprising that a cis person encountering a bureaucratic annoyance because they put the name they go by rather than their birth name on the form was not considered newsworthy.

The vibe I get from this is that this is ragebait where the headline invites the reader to jump to conclusions while the contents of the article suggest that this is actually just a stupid case of the government being bad at making a form (something I have personally encountered a lot).

I’m totally fine with being proven wrong, it wouldn’t be surprising in the slightest if there is malicious intent here. Is there evidence of selective enforcement here?

Before you can even entertain the arguments in this article, don’t you first need to address the barrier to entry of installing an operating system in the first place? This isn’t even a hurdle specific to Linux, I don’t really think the average user has the technical know-how to install any operating system onto a computer.

The issue is that this presents as false equivalence. While that is clearly not what you believe for this situation, the meme reads as a difficult choice between two equally bad options.

Look, I’m just asking you to do anything