>how utterly broken Wayland design is if it has to be defended by a core KDE developer. Huh? That makes no sense. If the dev had not defended Wayland, would yo

>how utterly broken Wayland design is if it has to be defended by a core KDE developer. Huh? That makes no sense. If the dev had not defended Wayland, would you have taken that lack of defense as evidence that wayland is good? If not, then it is irrational to take the existence of this defense as evidence that wayland is bad: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/jiBFC7DcCrZjGmZnJ/conservation-of-expected-evidence https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/jiBFC7DcCrZjGmZnJ/conservati...