TheGrandNagus @ TheGrandNagus @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

3,432

Joined

2 yr. ago

Indeed. That's what I do on my Plasma system, it's a good option.

But a new user or someone who isn't technical won't see that, they don't go digging through settings in each app, they just use the defaults.

I guess a solid compromise would be to enable this by default, and anybody who doesn't like that short descriptor can disable it.

But IMO nothing will beat the no-nonsense straightforwardness of calling OS apps immediately intuitive names. This is something I believe Gnome gets right. Go onto their GitHub and their file manager is called Nautilus, but on your system it will default to being called "Files", because they know everyone will understand what "Files" is but a lot of people would ask "Wtf is Nautilus??", same goes for other apps, e.g. "Loupe" appearing as "Image Viewer".

Programs that we think of as being part of the OS, such as the included text editor, is a very different thing to something like Steam, imo.

Steam isn't preinstalled on your PC, it's not a core part of your desktop OS. You download Steam yourself, so you'd only do it once you already know what it is.

Third party apps kinda need unique names and branding like that to distinguish themselves.

A newbie won't know what "Kate" or "Okular" do. They might know what "Dolphin" does because it has a folder as the app icon (although users of screen readers won't see that). They will probably know what "Notepad" or "Text Editor" does, though.

I like Kate as a program but man KDE need to change how some of their app names appear in Plasma.

A new user looking through their start menu and seeing "Kate" will have no idea it's a text editor/notepad. The same is true for multiple other programs.

Okular, Dolphin, Cantata... ask someone who's never tried Plasma before what those programs do and I'd wager you'd get an incorrect answer for each one.

Genuinely very useful, however I feel that can be achieved without a login and paid AI subscription.

Gee, I wonder why Verstappen, Red Bull, and Horner most of all would receive boos...

That said, I don't see why the FIA feels the need to wade in on this? There's not a lot they can do if fans decide they don't like something. What are they gonna do, fine the fans now too?

The FIA should get back to governing motorsport, not trying to insert themselves into any and every drama. I feel they only give a shit about the booing because they themselves also got booed.

Yeah, so they have some use

There are definitely things the Spotify Car Thing could've done.

It's a potato, sure, but there are still uses. Displaying some PC information, weather information, using it as a macro-pad (someone actually did that one)... or doing the thing it was designed to do: show some album art and the song you're playing, and giving play/pause, skip buttons.

Shit, even a desk clock would be better than nothing.

E: ah, I see you said unlike, not like. Never mind.

By extension this surely means that Hamilton is having to adapt too.

Both of them are fairly adaptable drivers IMO, so I'm sure they'll be able to perform well with what they're given.

10 series there was backlash over them advertising an MSRP and getting reviewers to assess the cards at that value, but having "founders pricing", where the initial run of cards (that IIRC were Nvidia reference cards only) were far more than the MSRP.

20 series they ramped up prices despite small performance gains, saying that it's due to ray tracing, and that when new ray tracing games came out the difference would be incredible. Ray traced games didn't actually come out until long after, and the RT performance was straight up unplayable on any card. But enough time had went past that people couldn't return the cards by the time that was known.

30 series there was the supply issues, 3090s and 3080s melting in a few games (most prominently in New Dawn), outrageously fake MSRPs (Nvidia was actually selling the GPUs to partners for more than the MSRP!), and really bad levels of VRAM that caused issues (8GB on the 3070/3070 Ti)

Brave is just Chrome with added crypto and homophobia

No, it's still 100% owned and 100% controlled by Google.

The Linux Foundation is just making it easier for people outside of Google to submit work to it.

Cynically, you could say that Google is just trying to get free contributions while retaining all the control. Optimistically you could say this is the first step in Google giving up control of Chromium in the far future, although currently they've given zero verbal or written indicators that they plan to do that.

Amazon controls the Bond franchise now? FFS.

There's the FXtech Pro-1, with a slide out keyboard, apparently the hinge is very good.

But it's pretty ancient by now and there's still no successor... I doubt it sold well.

Did they? There have been a few cases, sure, but in general they've not been good in this regard.

They're a publicly-traded company.

All of them, without any exceptions, place profit above literally anything.

A private company at least can place some things above profit, if the owner has principles. But when you're a public company with countless shareholders, any stated or perceived ethics or morals are only there for the PR to drive profits higher or because it's enforced by law. No exceptions.

MGU-H works very well, and they're only getting rid of it in 2026. Mainly to keep new upcoming F1 engine manufacturers happy as they don't have experience in MGU-H systems.

The software is open source now, so hopefully there are multiple options for PebbleOS devices.

Hahahaha

It's astonishing we allow it to happen.

Starbucks, for example, contributes almost nothing to the UK (~4% effective tax rate), and they have a UK-based competitor, Costa, that doesn't dodge taxes and pays an effective tax rate of over 20%.

Why the hell have our governments been allowing this to happen? Our businesses are playing at a massive disadvantage in their home market. It's absurd.

It's not reallyyyy open source . But I suppose neither is almost any LLM.

The OSI (Open Source Initiative) definition mandates that training data be disclosed and open.