I recommend trying another linux distro for a while. Arch has a pretty steep learning curve. So big respect for getting it to work as a first distro, but there is a lot of stuff you have to setup manually that just works on other distros. If you got more stuff working and get a little more familiar you can always go back to arch.

I use arch nowadays, but the first time i tried to install it i basically gave up a few times. If you just want to try it out in order to learn then it’s perfectly cool to take some time. But if your goal is to play games then arch is just a means to an end. Then it becomes really annoying, because you cannot reach your goal.

You have to remove the plastic wrapping first before microwaving those “objects”.

this is the best one !

No Rolkercoster Tycoon???

I read somewhere that farmers have started to buy very tiny Japanese pickup-trucks, because for most of the work they have to do during their day these small ones are much more practical. But American car manufacturers only make these oversized mob atrocities anymore, so the only solution is these Japanese ones. In size they’re basically these little busses where there’s no space between the two front seats.

I have no idea how to fix the problem, but I’ve read somewhere that burn (a relatively new machine learning framework in Rust) is capable of loading models like stable diffusion. As Burn is built with webGPU and all the shader transpiler-stuff that comes with it doesn’t that mean that it can also run easily on (even older) AMD cards? I think what’s lacking is equal performance as nvidia drivers are heavily optimized already.

Maybe someone knows more here?

what does “rootfull” mean?

It’s really a pile of garbage. And I’m angry at myself for watching so much of it. It’s clearly not written by anybody interested in the star trek universe.

My go-to example is also this one episode where one young character decides to from now on go by the pronouns “they/them”. I’m all for the inclusion of nonbinary characters - that’s what star trek always stood for - inclusion and the shared humanity that we all have. But that episode had basically nothing else going for it and the pronouns were the plot.

The new, great series “strange new worlds” on the other hand had a great episode with a very interesting non binary character (that BTW never was explicitly pointed out as one) who helped spock deal with his own problems of navigating his own two identities (human/vulcan). It was so clever and the nonbinaryness was integral, to the plot, but it wasn’t the plot. The actual plot was that the non binary character basically fooled everyone and turned out the villain. It’s such a great comparison between those two series. One makes a compelling show and the other one has nothing to say other than ticking a list of “woke” virtue signalling points.

Apparently Microsoft didn’t get the memo :-)

they’ll probably do a lot of computation ally expensive preprocessing / analysis of your behavior on-device to save costs. They’ll only send home the relevant results of the analysis. So it’s “only very little of the data” - like the important part :-)

Glad that isn’t Rust code or the pass by value function wouldn’t be very nice.

And you hook hook them to a higher sugar level right from the beginning.

It’s really incredible how munch sugar we consume on a daily basis compared to just a few generations before. When my parents were kids “sweets” were mostly pastry. Thinks people had to bake or buy at the bakery. Not stuff from the supermarket (there weren’t even “supermarkets” around really) wrapped in plastic. Back then you had to go through a lot of effort to have something sweet that you could eat - you had to bake it yourself or go to the person who baked them. But even then things didn’t consist that much sugar. I’m even convinced that back then when people mostly bough local fruits on the market they weren’t that sugary as well. zthink about it: The sorts of fruits we consume today come mostly from specialized regions in the world that produce them. The specimen they grow have been heavily modified through genetic selection. It’s very much possible that if I ate an apple from a 100 years ago it wouldn’t be that sugary compared to these perfect looking versions we buy today.

Sugar is like a drug for a baby. When my little one was just born the doctors took a bloop sample. In order to sedate the child they put dipped their finger in a little sugar syrup and touched the top of the babies mouth with it. So sugar really is like a drug. And giving it to babies is a guaranteed money maker in the future.

ITT people who think any argument can be countered by pointing out any inconsistencies of the person making it.

Think about it: If a chainsmoker would say to me “don’t smoke that cigarette! It’s unhealthy for you”, what would be the right response? According to these smart people here it would be: “Ha! if it’s so unhealthy why are YOU doing it???”.

One can make a correct argument and simultaneously contradict it with their actions. It doesn’t automatically void the argument.

The chainsmoker arguing against smoking is actually a perfect example to capitalism. He is addicted to smoking so much so that he is unfree to make decisions, out of control of his own life. He might have a clouded judgement at times and yet, is still able to correctly identify the problem, or parts thereof.

To capitalism we are also addicted in a way. Most aspects of our lives are controlled by it, many are made possible by it and also many bad things are enabled by it. As an individual it is almost impossible to not participate in capitalism. In order to have a baseline existence you need to participate in capitalism. Yet we can try to argue against the current system and try to find ways of making it better. It’s a really dumb argument to say “hahaha, but you bought vegetables in a supermarket, there for your critique of exploitive behavior of this supermarket chain is invalid”.

Additionally only allowing this shirt when it’s worn as a self-referential joke is also dumb. One can be critical of capitalism AND at the same time (self-referentially and/or ironically) admitting the inherent contradiction in one’s behavior.

It’s a little like critisizing people who speak on behalf of tolerance of they fight against nazis or other intolerant groups of people - and thinking your very very smart. The goal is more tolerance for people in the world because it makes the world a better place. It is not tolerating anything for the sake of being tolerance. That’s just apathy.

Now that you’ve got the idea apply it to everything in capitalist society. Especially if something is owned by shareholders.