>>106847931
This probably makes more sense in your native language, but absolutely none in English.
>you just claimed that walking is faster
I claimed that I would like to use a mouse. _I_ would _like_ to use a mouse.
>you need to know how to ride a bike to understand the benefits
And where is the evidence that I don't know how to ride a metaphorical bike? Do you realise how ridiculous this logic is? I could just as easily claim that YOU don't use a floating window manager due to a skill issue. "Hahaha look at this moron who doesn't even know how to use a floating WM, skill issue!!!!!!!!!" That's absolutely asinine, lol, and no, that is not a false equivalence; that is very much how invalid your argument is.