• 0 Posts
  • 20 Comments
Joined 9 months ago
cake
Cake day: July 1st, 2024

help-circle






  • monotremata@lemmy.catolinuxmemes@lemmy.worldDaily Driving
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    2 months ago

    There are a lot of reasons people might want to switch to Linux from Windows, but I don’t think it’s usually the GUI that’s the main problem on the Windows side. I think it’s pretty reasonable to want the GUI to work in the way you’re used to but still want an OS that doesn’t shove ads at you, install AI without your permission, bug you about Teams and OneDrive, reboot every time it needs to update anything, etc.





  • Sure, I mean, anything you need a spacecraft to do but that you can accomplish without adding extra equipment, you should probably do it that way, because it means less mass to accelerate and less equipment to test and certify and so forth. It’s definitely not hard to imagine getting this functionality without adding equipment. The question is whether the ability to do this in the rare scenarios that call for it offset the drawbacks of having a system in which the protections against such failures can be disabled. Which means you then have to include a bunch of interlocks and crap to ensure it’s as unlikely as possible that the ship can get into that mode without someone being very sure they want that. I think OP is probably right that on, say, a cargo ship, it’s pretty unlikely that “also, the engine can explode!” would be seen as a feature rather than a wholly alarming bug.


  • That would make sense for a cutting edge spy plane, but it’s a little weird for something like the Nostromo, which is just a standard cargo ship. I guess if you sometimes carried secret cargo, though, you would want that equipment standard, since otherwise installing it custom for one trip would be a dead giveaway that there was something secret on board.



  • It’s the “with which we are okay” that sounds a little stilted. Most speakers would probably phrase that part of the sentence as “which we’re okay with.” It’s just because “okay with” is so common that it almost feels like a transitive form of the verb “to be okay,” so splitting apart sounds odd.

    Note that there’s already a different transitive verb “okay” which means “approve” or “authorize,” as in “the boss okayed your plan to use the forklift,” implying that the person doing this has authority or control over whether the thing happens. “I’m okay with it” by contrast typically means something like “I have no control over it but it also doesn’t trouble me.” “Unfazed by” (spelled in this way, not related to “phase”) would be a similar expression.


  • Sound doesn’t travel as far through warm humid air, so the world feels a little more muted and calm. (Contrast this with the dry, dense air of a frigid winter day, when the sound of cars carries for miles as a dull growl.) The light is almost entirely diffuse thanks to clouds, rather than the sharp glare of a sunny day; your skin isn’t dried out and burned in the same way either. Public spaces aren’t as crowded. Indoor rooms are often lighted more gently as well without sharp sunbeams drawing lines. Add the sound of rain itself and the faint smell of petrichor, and the improvement in the air quality as the rain washes particulate and pollen into the gutters, and you get a perfect day to curl up with a book, a cup of tea, and a cat on your lap.


  • “No, I am not going with you to a concert in the park! There’s a zombie horde out there! We’ll get bitten!”

    “Hey, even the WHO says it’s not an apocalypse anymore. The zombies are endemic now. You can’t live your life in fear.”

    “Your mom was eaten by zombies literally last week.”

    “Yeah but she had diabetes. There’s always gonna be people with preexisting conditions who are gonna be more vulnerable.”

    “At least wear your denim jacket to make it harder for them to bite you!”

    “There was a study in the Lancet that said heavy clothes don’t work.”

    “You know full well that what they found was that requiring heavy clothes didn’t work because people just got bitten at the times when they weren’t wearing them.”

    “The author himself said jackets don’t work.”

    “He said that after he was bitten and just before demanding our brains!”

    “Okay, sheeple. Oh, hey Mom. We’re just heading out to the concert.”

    “Wait, your mom is here? I thought she was…”

    “BRAAAAIINSSS…”

    “You LET HER BACK IN after she died and came back as a zombie!?”

    “Dude, she’s not infectious anymore. She caught it like four days ago.”

    “That is NOT how this works! What… DON’T HUG HER!”

    “Bye Mom, love you…ow!”

    “She just bit you, didn’t she.”

    “Nah, I’m fine. Let’s go to the concert.”





  • One issue is that it can be leveraged to maintain a monopoly. Microsoft famously made a bunch of small modifications to the HTML standard, so that web sites that wanted to work with MS Internet Explorer had to write custom versions to be compatible. But because so many people just used IE because it was bundled with Windows, those “extensions” started to become their own standard, so that then other browsers had to adopt MS’s idiosyncrasies in order to be compatible with the sites, which in turn harmed standardization itself. They even had a term for this technique: “Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.” It nearly worked for them until Google pushed them out with Chrome. Microsoft tried to do the same thing again with Java until the government got involved.

    It’s complicated, certainly, but there are legitimate cases where “just a little tweak” can be quite a big problem for a standard.