Aceticon

Lutris will also let you install a game from a GoG offline installer using the install script from GoG (using the script means that if there are dependencies like the game needing a specific DirectX version it gets automatically configured in Wine).

Also if I understand correctly the article, going via Bottles means you have a single Wine "instance" (i.e. a wine prefix) for all your GoG games - as GoG access in managed via GoG Galaxy which is a Windows program - whilst Lutris by default gives you one wine prefix per game, so it's a bit better isolated and you can chose different Wine versions for different games (for those games were latest is not bestest).

Last but not least, if you want further isolation from your system in Lutris there is a "command prefix" option (under runtime options if I remember it correctly) where you can put the prefix for the command that runs wine with your game, which let's you run things like firejail which sandbox the whole Wine instance and whatever game it's being used to run (in my system I have it as default, configured to deny things like network access and privilege escalation). This is maybe more applicable for people sailing the high seas, but it will also do things like blocking games from sending game analytics over the network if configure as I did to block network access.

In several countries the mainstream party politicians (who are Neoliberals) have been slowly privatising healthcare by forcing the Public Healthcare System to outsource more and more of the work to the Private Sector and using the same technique as Thatcher in the UK used to privatise railroads (of which now, decades later, you can see the horrible results) - defund the Public Service and when the quality falls because of it claim that the Public Sector is always incompetent and the the Private is always competent so that's why that Public Service had problems hence it needs to be privatised to improve.

On top of that there is the actual genuine problem (rather than artificial meddling with the Public Healthcare System to send more money into the hands of politician's mates) that populations are aging and older people require much more Healthcare Services in average.

I've lived in a couple of countries in Europe and some have Universal Healthcare systems (such as the UK and Portugal) but others such as The Netherlands and Germany have Mixed Systems with Health Insurance but highly regulated and were some people can get Health Insurance from the state.

You're not going to go bankrupt from the treatment or get treatment denied in countries with UHC.

However if you lose your job or never find a job in the first place due to illness related issues or disabilities you'll almost certainly end up on benefits which again can be better or worse depending in the country.

I would say things have been getting worse all over Europe (personally I think it's exactly because there's been too much copying of shit from the US), especially when it comes to the level of benefits for poor people being sufficient (the house prices bubbles all over the place and the lack of building of social housing have made this a massive problem in most countries), but that's not the same as simply going bankrupt from medical bills because you've had an accident, ended up in an emergency ward and got a life saving surgery.

So it's literally something that's not legally supposed to happen, unlike in the US.

Mate, as I've said it's not one but TWO countries I lived in with Universal Healthcare, and you can't be a Nationalist (as you're trying to imply) for TWO countries.

If you're comparing like to like - i.e. the average poor disabled person in both a country with Universal Healthcare and the US - you're going to get some cases of those having insufficient treatment in countries with UHC (especially in those were neoliberal governments have been defunding their UHC systems to try and privatise Healthcare even against popular will, like the UK), whilst the vast majority of those people will be fucked in the US (unless they're Veterans).

I've lived in several countries and it's just an enormous peace of mind living in a country were you know that if you're involved in an accident and end up getting costly treatement in an emergency ward, you're not going to be ruined.

I think you're seeing the problems relative to a specific baseline and you think that there are massive problems there (which I'm sure there are) but the thing with the US system is that the baseline itself is way worse and all those problem you see would also be problems there but much worse (or maybe not, as those people would die a lot faster, at which point no problem would be visible) and on top of that in the US there are way more people with even worse problems when it comes to Healthcare than the "poor disabled person" in a country with UHC.

For every case of a disabled persion on benefits having to wait 1.5 years for a non-urgent operation because they can't afford private healthcare, there are a million of cases of people who get a common problem like Diabetes or Cardio-Vascular problems and get treated for free (down to getting the medicine for free, which for a person below the poverty line will be true even for the worst countries) rather than suddenly being faced with an extra monthly bill for medicine (which would be a massive hit for those poor people you cosplay as caring about for the sake of argument) or a massive bill for urgent surgery.

(Which reminds me: one thing that will NEVER happen in one of those countries, unlike in the US, is when one ends up in the emergency ward and requires an expensive treatment to save their life, they won't get a massive bill at the end)

Oh, and even if you pay out of pocket for medicine, it's way cheaper in those countries than the US, as governments have used their leverage to limit what Pharmaceutial companies can charge, unlike in the US.

The healthcare risks for the average individual in countries with Universal Healthcare aren't even in the same universe as in the US.

Having lived in two countries with universal healthcare, that meme is absolutelly true and you're the one bullshitting.

The most "extreme" it can get in such systems is that they won't pay for very expensive treatments (i.e. the kind of stuff that costs a million dollars per shot) if a person can keep going with cheaper ones even if they're not as good.

Even then, sometimes they will if it's actually worth it (as in: for something that's a cure, not for something that just keeps the patiet going and is only 10% better than the next best option whilst costing 1000x more).

That's "your quality of life won't be as good if you have a chronic disease that makes your life miserable and the best treatment in the market is insanelly expensive because they'll only pay for a not as expensive one", not "death panels".

People in those countries absolutelly aren't going bankrupt due to being denied life-saving treatment and having to pay for it from their own pocket.

As for any complains you might have heard from people in countries with universal healthcare, them complaining about it is like people in Scandinavia complaining about public services: relative to what they have there are bad parts, which is something altogether different than it being bad relative to the World and when it comes the healthcare the US is 3rd World when it comes to results delivered relative to the amount spent in it.

PS: For avoidance of confusion, by Universal Healthcare I mean countries were the State provides the Healthcare and you get it without paying, not the so-called "Mixed Systems" that also exist in Europe (for example in Germany and The Netherlands) and which have Mandatory Healthcare Insurance for all residents, though much more regulated than in the US and with a Public Provider for the less well off. Mixed Systems do have some of the problems of the US System and massivelly depend on the strength of local regulations and the seriousness of the Regulator to not decay into the same kind of situation as the US since the Private Insurance Companies there have the very same natural tendency to shaft their clients as the ones in the US and only the local regulations stop them.

Well, I haven't really made any large wire transfers to accounts outside the EU from that bank in over a decade so can't really confirm or deny.

I do know that in past experience with banks in general, the people checking the validity of suspicious transations (and large transfers to accounts outside the EU tend to fall into that classification given the prevalence of online scams from countries were the Law is a bit of a joke) will actually call you, or at least they did in the UK some years ago (pre-Brexit) which was the last time I had experience with something like that.

(At one point I also worked in a company that made Fraud Detection software).

Maybe they switched to SMS to save money, I don't know.

Ah, I see.

Your point is that the use of a secondary channel for a One Time Pass is still an insecure method versus the use of a time-based one time password (for example as generated in a mobile phone app or, even more secure, a dedicated device). Well, I did point out all the way back in my first post that SMS over GSM is insecure and SMS over GSM seems to be the secondary channel that all banks out there chose for their 2FA implementation.

So yeah, I agree with that.

Still, as I pointed out, challenge-response with smartchip signature is even safer (way harder to derive the key and the process can actually require the user to input elements that get added to the input challenge, such as the amount being paid on a transfer, so that the smartchip signs the whole thing and it all gets validated on the other side, which you can't do with TOTP). Also as I said, from my experience with my bank in The Netherlands, a bank using that system doesn't require 2FA, so clearly there is a bit more to the Revised Payment Systems Directive than a blanked requirement for dynamic linking.

It think you're confusing security (in terms of how easy it is to impersonate you to access your bank account) with privacy and the level of requirements on the user that go with it - the impact on banking security of the bank having your phone number is basically zero since generally lots individuals and companies who are far less security conscious than banks have that number.

That said, I think you make a good point (people shouldn't need a mobile phone to be able to use online banking and even if they do have one, they shouldn't need to provide it to the bank) and I agree with that point, though it's parallel to the point I'm making rather than going against it.

I certainly don't see how that collides with the last paragraph of my original post which is about how the original thread poster has problems working with banks which "require a separate device that looks like a calculator to use online banking" which is an element of the most secure method of all (which I described in my original post) and is not at all 2FA but something altogether different and hence does not require providing a person's phone to the bank. I mean, some banks might put 2FA on top of that challenge-response card authentication methods, but they're not required to do so in Europe (I know, because one of the banks in Europe with which I have an account uses that method and has no 2FA, whilst a different one has 2FA instead of that method) - as far as I know (not sure, though) banks in Europe are only forced to use 2FA if all they had before that for "security" was something even worse such as username + password authentication, because without those regulations plenty of banks would still be using said even worse method (certainly that was the case with my second bank, who back in the late 2010s still used ridiculously insecure online authentication and only started using 2FA because they were forced to)

Yeah, even though that unit is a thousandth of an inch, it's called mils rather than milli-inches.

There's also a difference between imperial miles and nautical miles, though I'm not sure if British long distance ships use nautical miles or not.