I meant that it should be possible to appreciate harmlessly stupid or silly/vapid humour without it degrading your ability to also reason critically about serious stuff.

Idk man. I don’t use TikTok and probably never will, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect people to be able to segregate their entertainment from their intellect.

Sympathize with their plight if you find doing so worthwhile, but also recognize their response isn’t helping.

Maybe they’re just a fan of death?

…Or maybe they mean threatening death itself— As in, like “Stop killing my friends, Death, that’s really not cool, and I’m going to start stealing your Death-beers from your Death-fridge if you don’t stop”.

…There’s probably an ecological definition for “community” that you could try to transfer over… I think in cases where a large group of individuals don’t actually interact with all of each other either directly or indirectly, but are nonetheless relevant as a grouping because they share a particularly contextually prominent set of traits (E.G. “Plays Video Games”), then “population” might be a more appropriate term (if a bit sterile).

Aligning power over systems with stackholders impacted by those systems is usually good for avoiding hostile incentives which result in hurting people, yes. Plus to some it might axiomatically be morally good.

https://reddit.com/r/gamedev/s/mLv9uIQ1vO

That just redirects to thread 16j21jg. They’re generating opaque unique IDs so they can track permalinks now?

Bruh. I offered a polite correction on an ultimately inconsequential grammatical error you made. You’re the one who doubled down on the error, and then continued doubling down while ignoring everything I said except for specific sentences which you clearly didn’t understand.

“Spewing out ChatGPT levels of text”? WTF is that even supposed to mean? I just quickly explained the grammar at first. Then, when you didn’t get that, I elaborated on the reasoning for it, and linked to like, five different independent sources, instead of just making blanket assertions. You didn’t understand, so I explained­— Jeez, but that’s the real issue, isn’t it? You don’t seem to like that very much.

This is so stupid. Does it even matter? Do you do anything other than moralize down at Internet strangers about petty and incorrect semantics while repeating yourself?

If I was saying that the change already happened I would have said ‘affectED’ past tense, which I did not.

I’m advocating for something to cause change, I’m not saying that change is already in the middle of happening or has happened.

Oh my god. You’re using “change” as an object noun after a transitive verb which itself has no connotation or denotation of creation or causation. That implicitly means you’re saying that the thing it’s referring to must already exist.

I’m advocating for something to cause change,

Yes! That is what “effect” means.

I’m not saying that change is already in the middle of happening or has happened.

Yes you are! “Affect (v.)” already means “change (v.)”. “Affect (v.) change (n.)” means “change (v.) the change (n.)”. That implies that the “change (n.)” must already exist.

It’s like if I said “This salt will really affect my spaghetti”. That implicitly says/presumes that “my spaghetti” already exists, or else it wouldn’t be able to be affected.

I stand by my usage of the word affect, over effect.

🙄

FFS, I explained the grammatical reasoning, and linked to historical usage data, and linked to four different dictionaries to back that up.

You know what, fuck it. I only mentioned “effect” vs. “affect” because I thought that was somewhat interesting and more obscure rather than annoying to point out, but if you’re going to just be obtuse about it I may as well have some fun and point out the various other grammatical and semantic mistakes too…

“The Congress app” should not have a definite article because the app you linked to is, per the app ID, developer info, and first line of its description, unofficial and unaffiliated with the U.S. Congress. “Representative” should be plural, though that’s probably just a typo. The second “despite” should have a conjunction such as “and” immediately before it. “Want” should be conjugated as “wants” after “citizenry”, because the noun it applies to in this case is the singular “majority”. “Affect” should be “effect”, because “affect change” isn’t a thing and is actually nonsense. The clause right after that, beginning with “that’s what the corporations”, is a run-on sentence and should probably be fixed with a conjunction denoting causality or reasoning. The clause after “involved” is also a run-on sentence, and should probably either be its own declarative statement or be semicolon-delimited. The third “to” on the second sentence of your next reply needs a listing conjunction right before it. And in your latest reply, the clause after “cause change” is also a run-on sentence and should probably be delimited by either a full stop or a semicolon instead of a comma.

Now I suppose I’ll wait for you to explain why you “stand by” these other plainly incorrect (and, frankly, inconsequential) errors as well.

It’s funny how you started out pretending to champion political change, and to be against frivolously “commenting about it on an Internet forum”. … I should know better.

Change is to alter something, not to create/produce something.

It’s a transitive verb. “Affect change” places “change” as the object. You’re not saying you’re altering the political situation or you’re altering Congress; You’re saying the change is already happening, and you’re merely slightly altering its direction. “Effect change” means “Make a change”, which is what you’re trying to say. “Affect change” means “change the change”, which is probably nonsensical in most cases you’d use it.

Also, “effect change” specifically is a standard idiom. “Effect change” shows up in the English language around 8X more commonly than “affect change” between 1800 and 2000, because “affect change” is a semantically incorrect misspelling of “effect change”. [1] “Effect a change” is also either explicitly defined in or given as an example usage in many major dictionaries, while the same isn’t true of “affect change”, because, again “affect change” is a generally incorrect usage that doesn’t actually make sense or mean anything outside of potentially very specific scenarios that don’t apply here. [2]

1: Google Books Ngram Viewer.

2: Defined in Collins. Used in example sentences by: Cambridge, Webster, American Heritage

I stand by my usage of the word affect, over effect.

I mean. Feel free to, I guess?

only way to affect change is to lobby

Don’t want to be pedantic, but not American and don’t really have much else to add here.

This is one of the few times when the correct word is “effect”, not “affect”. “Affect (v.)” means to alter, or have an impact on. “Effect (v.)” means to produce, and to create an effect (n.) of.

Nissan also said it collected information on “sexual activity.” It didn’t explain how.

Nissan doesn’t provide a detailed explanation of how the data is collected, but they say that the source they collect the data is “Direct contact with users and Nissan employees,” Whatever that means.

Based on this information, I can only infer that the Nissan sales handbook has a section on using seduction for particularly difficult and/or hot potential customers.

…I used to work at a pizza shop. Oh, so that’s why we got so many orders from the local Nissan dealership!

It’s for their upcoming line of Combine harvesters.

TAPR or CERN OHL, probably— Kit cars do already exist, though are apparently aimed at hobbyists, and usually just partial cosmetic customizations. “Metal box on wheels with motor” ain’t exactly rocket science, although quality could be challenging and that’s especially important when it comes to safety.

That said, surely the production costs of modern vehicles needed to do their basic job— Efficient-ish and safe-ish transportation from point A to point B­— Can’t possibly be worth their increasingly inflated costs? There’s probably something to be said about the marketability of a sub-$10,000 basic OHL car that you can choose to scratch build or kit-build or buy fully built.

Well, nuts.

Nix is a good tool, but don’t think I’d personally want to give up the Linux FHS for it. Manjaro’s management does indeed have a somewhat concerning track record.

Do you ever run into upstream bugs, or Idk, package version incompatibilities, on Endeavour? The idea that the 2-week package grouping and delay might help avoid those is one of the main things that drew me to Manjaro.

I mean, you don’t have to buy the new one. I guess as long as they’re not forcing you to upgrade while your current phone is still fine, it shouldn’t have too much impact on e-waste and stuff for them to refresh the parts list and specs for new buyers.

There’s probably some programs that you always want to run with the dedicated GPU, though.

Copy the launchers for those from /usr/share/applications to ~/.local/share/applications, and edit the Exec= line to include prime-run?

Or, assuming prime-run is inheritable (since otherwise apps that need renderer subprocesses wouldn’t work), run an application launcher/menu itself with prime-run?

Actually, it looks like prime-run just sets a couple environment variables anyway. So set those however you want for each program.

What does “NVIDIA Control Panel” look like these days? It’s been a couple years since I’ve seen it. No options in there?

I’m assuming you still want the IGPU and not the discrete GPU for rendering the desktop/simple programs, for power consumption and performance reasons, so you’re not willing to just turn the IGPU off or stick your entire session under prime-run or export its environment variables in ~/.profile or whatever.

It looks like there are also GPU switcher taskbar applets for both KDE and GNOME. This sounds like it would be easy enough.

…I think back when I was setting up a NVIDIA laptop, I might have just put a toggle for optimus-manager somewhere, or something.

My point was its all a separate tool which defeats the point. […] Just makes no sense.

Ah, well, “UNIX Philosophy”, maybe. Each tool does one thing, and does it well, and it’s up to the user to figure out what they want to accomplish by using multiple tools together— Though it probably made more sense in CLI than in the GUI realm. I think it works for 95% of cases. I don’t want to need an entire office suite just to be able to make a mark on a page. But when you’re working a lot on one particular document (be it a PDF, video edit, source code, digital illustration, or whatever), then yeah, having a “complete solution” with an efficient workflow can be hugely important as well.

I honestly willing to pay for a complete solution I dont want it for free.

You could check if CodeWeavers Crossover, the money behind the WINE project, can run your preferred Windows applications but do it on Linux:

https://www.codeweavers.com/compatibility

Or maybe WINE will do it for free:

https://appdb.winehq.org/