Yep. I know a few people who got their workplace to pay for it. It was an incredibly easy way for them to pad their resume and ensure higher pay ranges at stupid workplaces that gated stuff like that.
Only came up when we were talking about schooling (I was still finishing mine).
Everyone that made a big deal of it though, complete morons.
You actually see this kind of shit in tech bro spheres where they describe some "new groundbreaking invention" using terms like this when it's something we already have, but they're version is shittier.
Adam Something on Youtube has a saddening amount of videos on this sort of shit.
XCom and XCom 2 can be played entirely with the mouse. Minor typing if you want to name your soldiers, but nothing requires quick reflexes. Everything is turn based.
There's an older breakout style game on steam called Shatter that can be played entirely with the mouse and has a banger soundtrack and neat visual style.
Emulation opens up a lot of options for old school turn based games. RPGs, turn based strategy. Any of the Pokemon games gen 1-3 can be played one handed with some clever button mapping. Any game made to use just the Wii-mote as a pointer would also work, but I don't know those off the top of my head.
You might want to look into one handed controllers, or something like the FLIR USB dongle that you can use to map IR TV remote signals to keyboard button presses. Just need to use a remote that doesn't already control something.
Wait, they're adding vinyl cutting to the extruder? What in the mad science hell?
I can't see a world where that works well unless the cutter is on a different part. I'd imagine that a vinyl cutting head has entirely different design considerations and constraints than a 3D filament extruder.
Just this one. The dbzer0 instance is run in a manner I agree with (as democratic as possible, many choices determined by community vote), run by an admin I respect (former top mod of r/piracy, developer of a number of software projects that significantly improve quality of life on the fediverse by killing CSAM and offering community based trust and verification of instances), has been around long enough that I have no concerns about it suddenly disappearing with no notice, and generally doesn't defederate from other instances unless they're pedo or nazi related (so I don't need to be on multiple instances to get at the fediverse content I want to see).
Plus, at the end of the day, if the instance goes down, I'll just create an account somewhere else. If I don't remember one of the communities I was subscribed to then I can't argue that it was all that important in the first place.
You're making a huge assumption based only on the fact that Windows hides these logs from the end user.
I've had line of sight to those logs through a system that automatically highlights those errors and warnings for something like eight years now, for a fleet of over 1000 Windows machines at the start which is now roughly 5000 total.
In that time I've seen less than 200 graphics driver issues logged, and they all were on machines with failing hardware.
Yes, they are not anywhere as visible to the end user as they are on Linux, but they are also significantly less common (graphics issues in particular).
Also, if the warnings are meaningless, why display them to the end user? It's just more noise that actual problems can sneak by in.
Please spare me whatever philosophical navel gazing you're trying to do here. I'm asking what should be an incredibly straightforward question about what should be basic functionality in any P2P seeding based system:
What control, if any, does an individual user have over what they seed back into the system?
Some P2P systems just give each user an encrypted blob of all sorts of stuff, so the individual user can't choose and on paper isn't responsible for whatever it is that they are seeding back in. I'm personally not ok with not having a way to ensure that I'm not seeding nazi manifestos that were stealthing as a reasonably named subplebbit.
Holy shit you cannot be serious. In the shortest possible terms: trust systems are forms of moderation. Anything implementing them would not fall under what I was talking about.
This project doesn't appear to implement that. It doesn't even appear to have a bare minimum way for users to prevent themselves from sharing something they viewed but don't want to share. Viewing something should not imply trust.
Definitely appreciate the assumption that I'm just a dumbass and you've come to shine the light of enlightenment on me though. That my point of view could only be possible to reach through ignorance. That's always nice.
How are users able to decide what they seed and what they don't? Just because I viewed something doesn't mean I necessarily want to support its proliferation.
Yep. I know a few people who got their workplace to pay for it. It was an incredibly easy way for them to pad their resume and ensure higher pay ranges at stupid workplaces that gated stuff like that.
Only came up when we were talking about schooling (I was still finishing mine).
Everyone that made a big deal of it though, complete morons.