Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)IR
Posts
0
Comments
524
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • I was thinking about desktops, where the fan would be physically plugged into a fan controller instead of into the motherboard. Not sure what that would look like with a laptop.

    I was mainly asking because some of those fan controllers default to full on when the usb connection is absent, and Windows doesn't enable all usb connections until after the user logs into the system.

  • There is no "they". Manufacturers respond to whet people are buying, and try to predict where that trend will go. If that trend went towards different keyboard layouts, they'd do it. None of them have any actual vested interest in a given keyboard layout.

  • Yeah. It's one of those things where while a different solution is technically better, the benefit doesn't come close to outweighing the effort of changing for the overwhelming majority of people. And so the status quo remains.

  • I'd say it's got less to do with making money off the status quo, and more to do with lack of money in any of the alternatives. Most people can't type fast enough for extra layout efficiency to matter, and even fewer people care.

  • It's not hard to understand at all. There's a couple things at work here: first, humans are terrible at connecting emotionally to long term consequences. That's why a disaster that kills 100 people will always elicit a stronger reaction than a policy that will kill millions.

    Another thing happening is how humans subconsciously justify things to themselves. An adult could have "deserved" whatever happened, but there's no way a puppy did.

    I think it's dogs tickling the same parts of our brains as kids, which would go towards explaining the similar reactions.

  • I think this pretty much applies to all fields. Everything looks complicated and hard to outside people, but once you get into the field, you realize that most people are just average.

  • The first "W" in "WWII" stands for "World". It was used to describe the wars because there were multiple countries on both sides that were roughly at parity with each other when it comes to military power. In a NATO vs Russia scenario, there aren't military peers on both sides. NATO has multiple members that could likely win a war against Russia on their own, and Russia has no one.

    It wouldn't be a "World War". It would be Russia lashing out one final time before it ceased to exist.

  • A Russia - NATO war is extremely unlikely to become the type of global war that WWII was. There's not anywhere near enough strength among Russia's close allies, and China is extremely unlikely to go full out war with NATO. Their economy is too centered around being the manufacturing base for the rest of the developed world. They're more likely to grab a chunk of eastern Russia while Russia is unable to do anything about it.

  • It's important to note that for most of its existence, "fighting against Israeli oppression" explicitly meant Israel no longer existing. This is the first time I can remember them even implying that they would accept a two state solution.

  • The thing is, it can and will be abused either way

    So you are in favour of banning cars, guns, alcohol, knives, hammers, axes, all the strong painkillers, rope, and all the other things I can think of that have been abused causing death?