Don’t forget to compare a consumption too, or perhaps “performance per watt” metric. If plan to run this CPU in a server, this makes a difference in the electricity bill - especially for always on server.
Also I have a laptop I use from time to time running mint, few games installed. The games itself work okayish but the amount of times I need to “fix” some bullshit is annoying. Last things I remember were the touchpad being wonky and games having extreme tearing on HDMI, no matter if vsync was on or off.
I might try pop os some time but honestly my windows machine runs mostly without fault for years now (just cannot use any gpu drivers after march 24, but that’s on nvidia) and at the end of the day I just want to consoome without fiddling in settings every time.
Tryp BazziteOS next instead of Pop. It’s a Linux OS that’s designed for gaming and comes with all drivers, emulators, proton, etc out of the box. Also based on Fedora, which in my experience does better in the gaming department.
I’ve been using various GNU/Linux distro over the course of the last 20 years. When I started out, packages could never be too fresh and cutting edge. Nowadays I’m an admin and I administer way too many VMs. I dream of a system that I never need to update. While I know that’s almost impossible if you want to be secure now might finally be the time I give slackware a try. I’m also old enough to be more curious about learning less but more in depth.
UnRAID uses Slackware under the hood, I’ve had lots of trouble trying to use the shell and install packages and init scripts. I wish it was Debian based instead so my knowledge would transfer.
Anytime we talk about human behavior, it is a good idea to learn and use the lens of behavioral contextualism. If and only if the contextual behaviorist analysis concludes that human connections is the issue, Sue Johnson’s texts will be great to understand your coworker. Otherwise, the contextual behavioral analysis will let you know what’s going on.
Thanks for the response. I guess I do see much of human behavior through a contextual behaviorist lens. Sorry if it seems excessive. I am not Hayes or Hoffman. It is just frustrating to see blanket explanations for human behavior, instead of understanding specific processes. I guess I really want to avoid the fundamental attribution error and reductionism, something contextual behaviorism deliberately aims to avoid.
While I recognize Emotion Focused Therapy is helpful to understand and, if possible, change social behavior (which is why I mentioned it previously), I maybe should have brought up Emption Construction Theory or even Sapolsky’s multi-lens framework, considering different timescales of explanation. Would you have suggested something different? When does contextual behaviorism fail?
Thanks for helping me potentially falling into reductionism. I wouldn’t want to fall in that trap.
Read the other day that there actually isn’t any official distinction. It’s just colloquially used that way in some scientific circles but definitely not all. Probably not by etymologists.
Normally, I’m all for language changing over time. If some word is used a certain way, so beit. But not here. Not in a case where people can end up saying dumb shit like “Evolution is just a theory.” I will physically fight people on that, If need be.
In physics we call some results “laws” and some “theories.” The difference has absolutely nothing to do with our certainty in the validity of the results.
Newton’s Laws of motion are called that because they can be written as concise mathematical equations, and allof the content is there. Einstein’s Theory of special relativity is just as valid, and even contains Newton’s Laws as a special case, but the content of the theory can’t be written in simple, concise equations. There are several equations included in special relativity, but they do not represent the entire content. For example, the most important statement of the theory cannot be written in equation form at all: “The measured speed of light in a vacuum will be the same for all observers in inertial reference frames, regardless of the relative speed of their reference frame.”
Darwin’s Theory of Evolution likewise cannot be written in concise statements (mathematical or otherwise), but our certainty in its validity is no less than in Newton’s Laws.
Another important subtlety: I was careful to say that we are certain of the validity. People who don’t know better are fond of saying that Newton’s Laws are wrong. This is a fallacy. Scientific laws and theories can only be valid or not, they can never be true.
A law describes what happens, a theory explains why. The law of gravity says that if you drop an item, it will fall to the ground. The theory of relativity explains that the “fall” occurs due to the curvature of space time.
Science can never answer “why.” In your example, the question why is just moved, from “why does it fall?” to “why does mass distort space-time?” In both cases physics just describes what happens.
If you consider gross misuse (i.e. mixing up “theory” and “hypothesis”) to be a valid form of etymology (e.g. making new words), I have a question to axe.
(I apologize to linguists’ families who now have to clean up bodily fluids and/or arrange a funeral.)
To be perfectly fair, you can’t “prove” or “disprove” a theory. You can only discover new evidence that supports the theory or another competing theory. Multiple competing theories can be equally accepted as correct.
The issue is people using exactly that definition to reject science. We also have a theory of gravity, but gravity itself is an observation. Evolution should be too, regardless of our theories about it.
Also, String Theory isn’t doing anyone any favors.
I remember seeing somewhere that the “colloquial” usage is actually the original and that the scientific community is the one that changed it. I do agree that the evolution argument is stupid but it’s hard to blame the non scientific populace for not knowing the distinction. The evolution denier just don’t have a lot else to stand on.
Yeah, have you ever had an annoying roommate? Isn’t it so much more frustrating and isolating than living alone? You don’t even have your own space to get away so you just become more irritable all the time. Now imagine if you wanted to not live with that person that you need to get lawyers, your family, another family and the government involved
A lot of people get married because “they’re supposed to”, “they’ve been dating for a while”, or because it’s arranged. Is it shocking that those people don’t have the foundation for a good long term relationship? Is it shocking that every day is a little bit worse for them?
playerctl can list and control (most) media players individually, and would be suitable for writing a script with. In terms of rebinding keys you might be able to set them to run shell commands using global shortcuts in KDE system settings, although I’m not at my computer right now to test it.
kbin.life
Oldest