RadDevon

Oh, that’s helpful. Thank you for sharing that!

Turns out this was my goof. I was trying to set up auto-login on my user account. In doing so, I set it to automatically log in to Plasma (X11) instead of Plasma (Wayland). Odd that the default option in that dropdown is not the one you're currently using, but 🤷‍♂️.

What I'm now trying to figure out is why I can't set auto-login for Plasma (Wayland). The Apply button is disabled. 🤔

Thanks to everyone who shared ideas.

HDMI switcher is an interesting idea. Will it do more than just forward on the EDID? (Hope I have that right. 😅) Will it sorta translate it and push out its own EDID?

The cable is one of the two cables that previously completed the chain between the display and computer. Could it still be a problem in spite of that?

The monitor definitely is. Like I said, it was working when connected through the soundbar. It seems to be that it isn't reporting capabilities the same way the soundbar did when connected directly to the computer.

For anyone who happens to find this later, putting it in ~/.xprofile did not work for me, so I'll still with the other solution I posted here for now.

Ah, OK. I'll give this a shot. I found a solution (posted in the comments), but I don't love it because it depends on a sleep and isn't deterministic. Thanks!

I found a solution that seems to be working. Forgot where I saw this, or I'd give credit. Maybe StackOverflow?

Anyway, the solution was to write a separate shell script for my keymaps with a sleep 2 at the top. The, I run it as a startup application with this command: /bin/bash -c "sh /home/me/.keymaps.sh"

Apparently, the desktop environment must be loaded in order for the keymaps to take, so having it in my profile was running the command too early.

Hmm. I don't seem to have that file, so I guess that means I'm not using gdm? I haven't changed the login manager, so it's whatever comes out of the box with current Pop_os.

Ah, that’s very helpful. Thanks!

Do you virtualize or dual boot?

aside from leaving them behind

Ending slavery doesn't reset everything back to zero. Imagine if you're running a race against someone else. The person officiating the race (no clue what this kind of person is called 😅) lets your opponent start running the race and keeps you back at the start line. Then, they have a moment of clarity and say to themselves, "Wait a second… This isn't fair!" So, they stop that person where they are, apologize to you, say they promise never to do it again, and blow the whistle so that you can both start the race.

But wait! That person still ended up starting way ahead! But we already ended head starts before the race started so it's OK, right? Well, no, because the person who got the head start still got to start from their advantaged position.

But this isn't quite the same because your issue crosses generations. So, a better analogy might be a relay race. Maybe the head start is stopped just as the second person on the opposing team receives the… thing you pass in a relay race. (Why am I making an analogy to a thing I know nothing about? 😅) They didn't personally get the head start. So, it's OK to go ahead and start the race now with one relay team already on their second runner while the other is on their first, right? It wouldn't be fair to punish that person who didn't directly gain the advantage of the head start.

Well, no, because that team still got an advantage and the other team still started at a disadvantage. Reparations are less about punishing an individual and more about leveling a playing field.

Yeah, I get it, but I figure if someone doesn't understand why it's a problem to blame someone for having their content stolen, they probably won't understand why it's wrong to blame them for having other intangibles stolen either. The transition to tangible object was intentional in hopes of bridging that gap. The only right that is exactly the same as copyright is copyright, but that analogy wouldn't really work for someone who doesn't understand how copyright works. 😅 It's kinda the point of an analogy: to highlight the similarities between two things that are similar in some ways but necessarily different in others for the benefit of someone who understand the subject but not the object of the analogy.

But again, the point isn't that car ownership is the same as copyright. That's a (intentional, I think) misunderstanding of how analogies work. They don't claim that every attribute of the two things being compared is the same; only that there may be enough similarity to bridge a gap in understanding. I can't see anything so wrong with this analogy that it invalidates the point I was making with it. The point was that having the law commonly ignored doesn't open the door for victim blaming if they don't jump through all the hoops armchair lawyers define for them. That's often the case when the law grants us rights: we just have them at a certain point and don't have to do anything else. I have a right to continue owning a car that I bought. I have a right not to be punched in the face. I have a right to be involved in my children's lives. I have a right to continue to own the works I create. These are different rights which apply to different sorts of things, but the principle is the same. If I had made any of these analogies (or any analogy period), a bad faith argument could certainly have found a trivial difference between the two… but it would have been just that: a bad faith argument based on a trivial (for the purposes of this analogy) difference.

Is stealing a Reddit post the same as stealing a car? No, because as everyone has pointed out, the car cannot easily be copied, but is violating someone's copyright the same as violating their ownership rights over some item they purchased? Yes. When you violate someone's right to own the car, they do not retain an identical un-violated copy of their right to own it, just the same that way when you violate their copyright, they cannot retain an identical un-violated copy of that right somehow. Both of these rights have been violated equally, and the tangibility of the object they applied to doesn't change that.