Maybe it depends on how or when you signed up. I never gave a cell number and I can use 3.5.
Where are you getting your definitions? They are clearly orthogonal concepts.
The correct answer has already been posted here... But... Pedantically, you are wrong. Gnosticism and atheism are orthogonal concepts.
This story is literally every experienced Linux users first horror story.
I still remember the first time I broke my xorg config on my shiny new slackware 10 install in early 2005.
Have LTS kernels started backporting non security fixes like this? To be fair I haven't looked at this in over a decade but this kind of patch wouldn't have been backported then.
This is one of those comments that causes Arch to get the reputation that it does. You aren't wrong and you probably don't intend to be off-putting but here we are.
Red Hat and Debian both backport security fixes but don't backport things like laptop device support. It can take a year or more for versions of those distros to gain the kind of functionality that is looking for.
This is an excellent answer. My eli5 addition is this:
It depends on your distro. Distros that do more hand holding and more compatibility without additional operator involvement will be more likely to backport or use a stable kernel with backports like these. Examples: Ubuntu/Fedora/Mint. Distros that focus on system stability will take much longer to integrate backports like these, ex: Debian. And masochists will tell you to do it yourself, ex: lfs, arch.
Suburbs without cars are food deserts. No shops, no public transit. Only single family homes, schools and pedophile shuffling services (churches). If I had to walk to buy any food (even fast food) it would be a 45 minute trip minimum.
And you would be wrong.
The likelihood that Bigfoot exists and that block chain will ever be actually useful are about the same... So seems legit to me.
There are several well written books on the topic. Generally though you can use the dictionary definitions:
Knowing / not knowing does not imply the position of/on belief. Oft, casually, agnostic is used as a wiggle word to escape pressure to define a position (the second definition) or to explain that the position held is unimportant.
Theism/atheism is the position that is either knowable or unknowable. Conflating the two is common because an unknowable is often taken as not knowing a person's position on a topic regardless of that individuals actual beliefs.
Commonly people, incorrectly, assert (like you have) that there are three positions: gnostic theism, agnosticism and gnostic atheism.
While most theists are gnostic theists (they know that their God they Believe in is real) most atheist are agnostic atheists (they lack the belief in a god and they don't know or not if it is possible to know of a god if one did exist (or not)).
Edit: a reply to your edit.
The definitions are not muddled in the academic/theological world. They are absolutely muddled practically when speaking with people who are not well versed in the topics.
For example, depending on a persons depth of understanding of philosophy I will classify myself as an agnostic atheist or a gnostic atheist (or just an atheist if gnostic/agnostic split is difficult to disambiguate for them). I am a philosophical physicalist (a form of materialism) which by definition excludes a supernatural god... Which makes me a gnostic atheist. But without understanding that philosophical position I am practically an agnostic atheist because of the ways most people interpret the ability to know things.