Yeah, I’d say ideally you should be able to run mint and just figure out what you need to do with minimal difficulty.
My partner started using mint recently and the two biggest annoyances for her are having to enter her password all the time to update anything, and minor windowing differences, especially going in and out of fullscreen games. I think both of those are just a matter of getting used to how it’s done differently outside of windows.
IMO the thing that could use some attention is their package manager. There are several warnings and failures that I think have been unnecessary.
ex 1. Almost every update will ask if she’s sure she wants to resolve some package conflict in some default way. This is not a question a normal user is equipped to answer, and only makes the user uneasy about what’s happening.
ex 2. When she initially installed, the welcome wizard had her run a speed test to rank her repo sources, and she picked a nearby university that seemed like a good choice. Then a few days ago at random, it became inaccessible I guess, and now her package update fails to update Firefox specifically. I need to help her sort that out, haven’t had time.
These are the kinds of errors I expect to see on arch occasionally, but on mint I feel like it should always figure out what the best option is for the user and just do it. If it needs to let the user know it did something, fine, but don’t present it ominously. Just put the system in a good state so that it’ll keep working, that’s all a normal mint user wants you to do.
Seems like a train that uses both sides of the track fulfills different requirements. A train can only be made to go one way at a time, but can hold more people (increased bandwidth), but these smaller half-cars can be moving people in both directions at the same time (lower latency). Seems quite clever if it works out.
I mean, just as you’ve phrased it, if generations only consume more than they produce in an environment of finite resources, the species would only survive a finite amount of time.
Why do they think population is proportional to ability to “pay back” debts? We have technology. If one example of a “debt” is taking care of the aging baby boomer generation, yeah there was a time when that would have been solely the responsibility of their descendents, but we have improved medical technology to keep old people healthier in life, we have conveniences that make getting groceries, doing activities, or socializing easier, and (in some countries) we have modern social safety nets to ensure that even someone without any living relatives can feel safe knowing that they are taken care of.
Another way to phrase my original question: would it be adequate for us to, instead of increasing the population, to develop a series of sufficiently advanced and efficient robots to do whatever task your friend thinks we need more humans in order to do? Just trying to understand the rationale.
The original graphics, physics, and performance were incredible for the time, but to be fair, that’s not what you’re running when you download HL2 on steam today. The textures have been silently updated many times over the years. Your mind’s eye says “yeah, this is how I remember it”, and I’ve seen multiple streamers playing it for the first time thinking they’re seeing the original textures from 2004.
I mean, they clearly already know how to do a fresh image of a live OS on a USB key. But the number of keys involved sounds like they don’t know you only need one.
I hope the reviewers all made really positive, upbeat videos praising the way they chose to stick to such a proven pay-to-win strategy. The cosmetics and in-game currency that you spend real money to acquire really gives players a way to dispose of their bothersome disposable income. And earning daily login bonuses has never been so streamlined!
I know nothing about this game, but I would bet money this is the formula.
It’s often attributed to Orson Welles, but I don’t know if that’s accurate. It is paradoxical, yes, but I find it to be a commonly relatable sentiment though across many art forms. It almost seems like the art world’s version of “necessity is the mother of invention”.
Without limitations, there’s little opportunity for art; or to frame it another way, if everything is expected, nothing can be surprising. It’s when an artist’s work “jumps off the page” that people are in awe, so it’s important there’s a “page” to “jump off of” as it were.
Historically, music changes to fit the medium that’s used to deliver it to the listener. Short form video is no different. I just have to trust that artists will always find ways to say what they need to say. After all, “the enemy of art is the absence of limitations.”
It depends: if you only listen to music (or view artwork) to feel “good” or enjoy “basking” in the emotions it evokes, then it makes sense to steer clear of artwork you disagree with or makes you uncomfortable.
But if you find value in viewing artwork that illicits a multitude of emotions, evokes introspection, throws you off balance, and forces you to consider concepts you wouldn’t otherwise, then taking a moment to peak into the mind of someone you fundamentally disagree with is a great way to do that.
As Werner Herzog put it, “the poet must not avert his eyes”.
This tactic—the so-called fire hose of falsehoods—ultimately produces not outrage but nihilism. Given so many explanations, how can you know what actually happened? What if you just can’t know? If you don’t know what happened, you’re not likely to join a great movement for democracy, or to listen when anyone speaks about positive political change. Instead, you are not going to participate in any politics at all.