These 34% include those who were pressured or bribed into voting for them (like, “Show us proof that you voted for the ruling party or we’ll cut your bonus” at work).

And also, government propaganda is strong, so some elderly people who only watch TV or people from remote regions who weren’t impacted by the war as much, might be inclined to blindly believe what is said in “official” government news and support the image that the party created rather than their real policies

Well, legally it’s (AFAIK) really a grey area. But morally… Especially considering that Russia was targeting Nova Poshta with the same justification for quite some time before the attacks on Wildberries started.

Camouflage nets, rifle scopes, body armor, trench candles… Just to name a few.

As if a landlord would ever buy a decent switch and not the absolute cheapest one

That is a risk that should be accepted. Still doesn’t answer my question, why shouldn’t it be done?

Let’s say hypothetically that I’m a student who has a mediocre laptop with only a single internal drive. And I need Linux for college, and I want Windows to play [insert a game with shitty DRM that’s unsupported by Proton] with friends. Why shouldn’t I install two OS’s on the same drive?

Why not? It works perfectly fine if you install windows first and Linux afterwards. I’ve done it multiple times and the problems only arose during windows updates, occasionally. If windows wasn’t such a piece of shit, what would be wrong with this configuration?