I've had little to no fan noise unless I'm deliberately driving the machine hard (i.e. building a kernel). But if they do spin all the way up it's a jet engine.
2,366 karma · joined October 13, 2019
Frankly, I was a little shocked it worked as well as it did. Hell, even my USB dock was plug-and-play, which really blew me away. I was used to Linux on laptops being a giant PITA, and yet...
Yup, absolutely true, and I'm no evangelist or Linux maximalist. People should use what works for them. It's not like Linux needs the desktop to succeed. The reality is, it's already taken over the world. In the grand scheme of embedded devices, phones, servers, infrastructure, etc, the desktop is just another niche...
Are you perhaps referring to hibernation?
As an FYI, for folks reading this, I spend at least half of every day in video conferences and this is largely a non-issue these days. The vast majority of platforms have web-based clients that work great, and many have native clients that are quite good as well. The biggest issue is probably screensharing on Wayland, which can be fiddly to get working and is subject to client issues, so stick with Xorg if you can.
In terms of hardware, I just end up buying gear designed to work with Linux rather than trying to make Linux work on a random piece of equipment. That means typically Dell or Lenovo, though newcomers like Framework are also prioritizing Linux support.
If you're using just random gear, older is better, as Linux support comes eventually but it often lags.
Edit:
By the way, I have to say, I've appreciated a lot of the comments in this thread. While I don't myself have the deep affection for the mac trackpad, and so can't really comment on that experience, everything else in this comment thread absolutely rings true to me.
And I say that as a person using Linux as a daily driver!
They're all different and I love em all for different reasons.
Though I will say I absolutely refuse to drink Keurig coffee. It's an environmental disaster and it has the strength and flavour of coffee brewed with used beans...
We are absolutely not.
Are there many things we don't know about the function of the immune system?
Sure.
Are we "in the dark"? This couldn't be more incorrect, and again, borders on deeply misleading misinformation.
Frankly, this smells a lot like the kind of climate change denial we used to hear. i.e., because there was uncertainty, we therefore can trust nothing and know nothing. And that "logic" was just as flawed, then, as it is now.
First, this is deeply deeply misleading, to the point of being misinformation. The idea that a version of COVID will pop out that renders the current vaccines completely useless is founded in nothing but alarmist speculation. Could it happen? Maybe. But we have a virus now that's known to be dangerous, for which we have a vaccine that's very effective. To not take that vaccine, now, based on this speculative fear is completely nonsensical.
Second, it's a false dichotomy:
c. Take the vaccine, get a mild breakthrough case of covid later that builds even stronger protection.
Truly it's the purest form of Keynesian beauty context imaginable, and everyone who's participating hopes they won't be the greater fool.
Honestly, NFTs will make it into economic textbooks, assuming they haven't already. They've become these wonderfully pure little natural experiments in economic theory, and it's fascinating (and horrifying) watching them play out.
Exactly that. As with Tor, if you can observe the entry and exit flows you can deanonymize the traffic.
> masculinity is toxic. And that’s also what people love about it, similar to how they’re addicted to the rotten rinds in cheese. All that striving for greatness is indivisible from the selfish need to inflict cruelty on your dominated foe. Take away the latter and there is no sports. It’s just exercise.
So, to sum up: Masculinity is toxic. Without toxic masculinity, sports aren't sports. Women, therefore, cannot excel at sports. And so Nike's marketing is bad.
Maybe the reason the article is flagged is that the thesis is just dumb?
First, it's optimistic to assume that data is accurate and up-to-date.
Second, I can't emphasize my "group consensus" point enough.
Anyone who's driven in real world winter conditions has seen a day where three lane roads turn into two. Or lanes form in the shoulder. It'd be actively dangerous to insist on driving according to the underlying lane markings during those types of road conditions.
Maybe in a world where all cars are autonomous and using map data that could work. In reality it really doesn't.
This remark makes me wonder if you've ever lived in an area that actually experiences winter.
Around here, dead of winter, there are no lines visible on the streets. Heck, after a good snow storm the lanes are basically a function of group consensus.
Surely there was a shoulder for use during emergencies. Why on earth didn't you pull over and turn on your hazards?
So just to be clear, your definition of "safe haven" is, what, total lawlessness with no governmental oversight?
Frankly, these moves make me think people are taking crypto seriously now, as we're finally treating it like real money or the banking sector and regulating it accordingly. If anything, it seems to me that should be a sign of success, not failure.
(and I should point out I own no crypto and I think blockchains are the biggest technical snake oil grift I've seen in the history of computing)
The Astronomy Picture of the Day (granted, it's been updated over the years but the style is decidedly retro): https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html
And the original WikiWikiWeb: http://wiki.c2.com/
In this particular case it simply doesn't matter.
The data exists. Engage with that, as have many other comments in this thread.
An ad hominem, in this case, is just a mental shortcut to get to the answer you've already picked (i.e., that SpaceX is faultless).
Edit: BTW, regarding the data and methodology, here's a great write-up about why the Israeli top-line numbers can be misleading:
https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/israeli-data-how-can-...
Further, for context, "Global crude steel production reached 1,869.9 million tonnes (Mt) for the year 2019" (https://www.worldsteel.org/media-centre/press-releases/2020/...). So even at full scale, 5 million tons a year is a very small drop in a very very large, dirty bucket.
The article is also unclear as to whether the hydrogen used here was in fact green hydrogen. My bet is probably not, given the vast majority of hydrogen out there is blue hydrogen or worse. We'd need the green hydrogen industry to expand significantly for hydrogen-based processes like these to truly be carbon neutral.
Finally, there's no mention of cost comparison. So it's unclear if this process is price competitive with coal-based processes, or would be any time soon.
In short: Very cool, but a long way from where we need to be if we wanna hit net zero in my lifetime (which, you know, we won't, but...)
Actually, it literally is. From https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
"when someone makes an ad hominem, they are attacking the person they are arguing against, instead of what they are saying."
That's quite literally what you were doing in your first comment: attacking the person instead of engaging with their claims.
> The number of "close calls" (assuming here you're taking the article's definition of such an event as being "when two craft pass within one kilometre of each other") is just a number, and I am not "interpreting" or otherwise questioning it. I'm simply questioning why it matters.
And that is a valid conversation to have.
But just saying "bad source, biased" isn't meaningful. It adds literally nothing of value to the conversation.
So let's talk about that!
I'd say that collisions between objects in orbit does matter and an increased rate of close calls is a reasonable indication that there's likely an increased probability of a collision.
Now, SpaceX has an unusually large number of objects in LEO, so just by virtue of those numbers, they're likely to have a higher number of close calls than other operators.
The question for me, is: could SpaceX be doing something differently to reduce these incident rates?
It'd be nice to get some visibility into how SpaceX is managing their fleet, and the means by which they're coordinating with other operators. Maybe it's the case that SpaceX is doing everything they can and this is just the practical reality of operating a large fleet of satellites in LEO.
But at this point I just don't know, so it'd be good to learn more.
This is just an empty ad hominem.
Is the data accurate or is it inaccurate?
Is the interpretation of the data valid or is it invalid?
Either SpaceX is or it is not involved in a lot of close calls in orbit. These are not facts up for interpretation, they either are or they aren't.
Whether a given rate is alarming or not is a value judgement, certainly, but if there has been a significant increase in rate, and SpaceX has been responsible for that increase, then the facts speak for themselves.
So, what is your take on the facts as they've been reported?
Bureaucracies are weird, byzantine things. To assume malice when, given the information we currently have, incompetence is equally likely seems to me to be editorializing.
Is incompetence good? Hell no, and the administration has a lot to answer for. But to assume, not just that the administration didn't know how bad the exit from Afghanistan would be, but that they intentionally lied about it, is a leap that, while possible, I'm not yet willing to make.
Why?
Is there some objective reason you believe them more, or is it just that they tell you the things that feel right to you?
Speaking purely for myself, I find Greenwald and Taibbi to be every bit as slanted and shrill as any other source of media, they're just slanted in a different direction.
Should they be included as part of an overall media diet that, on balance, gives you a more rounded view of current events?
Perhaps.
Should they be believed to the exclusion of other media sources? If you're asking me, absolutely not. That's no better than subsisting on a diet solely of Fox or the Times.
That's easy enough to explain: Billions of dollars in the capital markets chasing ever-diminishing returns. But that music will stop eventually... at some point they won't be able to borrow money at vanishingly low interest rates, and their stock price won't bear raising capital in the public markets.
At that point, unless Uber has massive costs in other areas that they can cut, they'll have to stop subsidizing rides, which means either continuing to cut fees to drivers which will further depress the supply side of their market, or jacking up rates, which will hurt the demand side.
In both cases, there's an interplay--if the supply side drops off, wait times will go up and you'll have fewer riders. If the demand side drops off, you'll have fewer opportunities for drivers to make money so they'll leave the system. The result is a death spiral.