There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

kbin.life

olafurp , to asklemmy in What is a low technology you really love ?

String/rope. With a couple of knots, loops and tension you can make a lot of things with it.

AsudoxDev , (edited ) to nostupidquestions in Is linux actually gaming ready or is it just not for me?
@AsudoxDev@programming.dev avatar

Arch linux user here. Gaming totally works. Sometimes even better than Windows when playing native games. Even Proton works good most of the time. Sometimes I play Brawlhalla with Proton Experimental and it runs better and less laggy in Linux than Windows despite Windows having a native build. Check ProtonDB to find out how well games work on Linux. Linux gamers review games there.

Thanks to Valve, the Steam Deck is getting Linux popular and basically makes devs build their games for Linux as well.

aeronmelon , to risa in A Rehash of a Classic

Bashir: “Friends? Sure.”

Garak: “I’m working on the ’benefits’ part.”

tired_n_bored , to linux in WSL vs. Dual Booting vs. virtualbox

WSLPros: easy to use and to install Cons: it still runs on top of Windows and some hardware functions are not available. Also, terminal-only

VirtualboxBasically the same as WSL but it could be slower being a layer2 hypervisor

Dual bootingPros: a full-fledged Linux OS Cons: Harder to install and to mantain.

clmbmb ,

Also, terminal-only

this is not the case anymore. You can run graphical applications.

tired_n_bored ,

I didn’t know, thank you

Guenther_Amanita ,

Dual booting Pros: a full-fledged Linux OS Cons: Harder to install and to mantain.

Also, sometimes Windows being an ass and “accidentally” breaking the bootloader.

I advice anyone to have just one OS per drive installed. Keep Windows and Linux separate if possible, or some Windows update may break GRUB.

neidu2 , to linux in WSL vs. Dual Booting vs. virtualbox

In my book WSL and VM share the same downside in that you’re only abstracting Linux functionality in relation to the hardware.

Linux really shines when it has full access to the actual hardware as opposed to asking it’s environment nicely if it’s allowed to do something.

For example, I routinely need to change my IP address to talk to specific networks and network hosts, but having to step over the virtualisation or interpretation layer to do so is just another step, thus removing the advantage of running linux in the first place.

Sure, VMs and dual booting have their uses, but the same uses can be serviced by an actual linux install while also being infinitely more powerful.

I played around with WSL for a while, but you notice really quickly that it is not the real thing. I’ve used virtual box for some use cases, but that too feels limiting ad all of the hardware you want to fully control is only abstracted.

I would say that unless he has a really good reason why he wouldn’t want to go for dual boot, then he should do just that.

Deckweiss , (edited ) to linux in WSL vs. Dual Booting vs. virtualbox

Depends on their specific needs, so they should probably jump into some Linux community and ask for themselves.

My anecdotal evidence includes vastly different experiences.

I have a friend who hates Linux desktop and exclusively uses it for running dev related stuff via WSL.

Another who uses Linux desktop primarely, but dualboots Windows for certain games.

And I am on Linux single boot and rarely use KVM (without GPU) for running my CNC or other software.

southsamurai , to asklemmy in What is your criteria based on which you feel something someone says calls for proof or not?
@southsamurai@sh.itjust.works avatar

That title is word salad, but if I’m reading everything in the text right, it looks like you’re asking when proof is expected to be provided when asked for.

It could be you’re asking when we would ask for proof before considering the other person to be acting in good faith.

It doesn’t matter much which one it is, since the answer from my end is essentially the same thing, but if it isn’t one of those, my response might be different, and thus make this comment off topic unintentionally.


For me, the tipping point is more about a combination of claims and import. The less important it is, the more unbelievable the claims can be before I call shenanigans and want proof if I’m going to continue interacting with someone.

The inverse is true as well. A very important subject, and the less incredible the claims can be before I nope out without proof.

The key is that it’s about the time I’m willing to spend entertaining a discussion.

If I’m confident enough that the person is full of shit, I’m not engaging at all, unless what they’re saying could fuck up someone else’s life in some way. If that’s the case, I don’t engage, but I’ll provide whatever information I have and nope out.

In your example, the claim to be from a low population location is so low importance that IDGAF. The only time that would matter to me is if they’re making claims of authority because of it. Even then, as long as what they’re claiming is consistent with fact that can be looked up, I ain’t got the time to try and pry them out of their story.

There’s also a limit to what kind of proof is acceptable to ask for. Which doesn’t apply to your example, what with them claiming a specific location, but in general, nobody has to dox themselves to satisfy me, so I’ll disengage if I really believe they’re full of shit rather than go there.

I’ll never ask someone for a picture of themselves or any identifying features. It just isn’t acceptable to ask for.

See, there’s a bit of leeway necessary for a semi-anonymous forum to function. You assume the best until something stops that possibility. In the example you gave, one of you brought up “els syndrome” (which isn’t something I’m aware of, and it didn’t come up with a description or other information on a quick search)

If someone is making claims to have a medical condition, and the conversation doesn’t veer into claims of medical fact, I’m perfectly willing to accept their experiences as lived and not care if that matches with other people’s lived experiences. It just doesn’t matter on a partially anonymous forum. It’s the same kind of suspension of disbelief that’s necessary to take anyone’s story at face value. Until and unless their personal experience reaches something known to be false, it isn’t something that matters for having a nice conversation.

If they start claiming that drinking apple cider vinegar cured their AIDS, we got a problem. That’s where things start getting dangerous to others that nighty come along later.

Are those examples enough to get my viewpoint? I don’t wanna belabor the point if it’s clear enough.


Why does it matter at all? Well, there has to be a balance between healthy skepticism and giving people room to express themselves. We should all, always carry a kernel of doubt with us regarding any claims. But we also should always “remember the human”. None of it will achieve both of those perfectly, but that’s the goal.

If the other person is lying out their ass, does it matter? Does the interaction lose value because they’re making things up? I say it doesn’t inherently do so. If I interact with this post of yours, but it turns out you made it all up, it doesn’t devalue the interaction for either of us.

So the balance of this thread is about people expressing something that’s largely internal. If you felt the need to fake the posted conversation snippets, it still expressed something true in you, regardless of objective reality. We, as people, can still have valuable interaction over fiction. You making it up would not have any impact on the value I have/get in my response.

Your examples don’t meet the criteria for proof in my mind. You had what looks to be an interesting conversation with someone. That’s the primary thing, imo. Was the human interaction worth the time put in?

Strit , to linux in kdenlive 240.08.1 just stopped working after system update on Archlinux
@Strit@lemmy.linuxuserspace.show avatar

mlt was also updated, have you tried downgrading that?

Some stuff in your output relates to mlt.

thingsiplay OP ,

No, I did not. After my post I got an mlt update too, which didn’t help with Kdenlive, but Inkscape stopped working… Right after that Inkscape got an update and now it works again. It all looks like an known issue they are aware off? Couldn’t find anything related in KDE and Archlinux forums a few hours back.

Last time Kdenlive broke, I used Flatpak until that was resolved. Maybe I’ll wait a bit again. But will have in mind to downgrade mlt, but I’m hesitant to downgrade libraries other tools may depend on.

regdog , to nostupidquestions in Seriously, what the f*** is keeping Donald Trump in this presidential race?

Spite is a powerful motivator. Both for Trump himself, and also for his supporters.

somenonewho , to selfhosted in Paid SSL vs Letsencrypt

Worked as a sysadmin for years dealing with all kinds of certificates. Liek others have said if you can’t automate the process a paid certificate buys you 12 months at a time in validity. Also wildcard certificates are more difficult to do automated with let’s encrypt. If you want EV certificates (where the cert company actually calls you up and verifies you’re the company you claim to be) you also need to go the paid route

In my experience trustworthyness of certs is not an issue with LE. I sometimes check websites certs and of I see they’re LE I’m more like “Good for them”

Laser ,

Also wildcard certificates are more difficult to do automated with let’s encrypt.

They are trivial with a non-garbage domain provider.

If you want EV certificates (where the cert company actually calls you up and verifies you’re the company you claim to be) you also need to go the paid route

The process however isn’t as secure as one might think: cyberscoop.com/easy-fake-extended-validation-cert…

In my experience trustworthyness of certs is not an issue with LE. I sometimes check websites certs and of I see they’re LE I’m more like “Good for them”

Basically, am LE cert says “we were able to verify that the operator of this service you’re attempting to use controls (parts of) the domain it claims to be part of”. Nothing more or less. Which in most cases is enough so that you can secure the connection. It’s possibly even a stronger guarantee than some sketchy cert providers provided in the past which was like “we were able to verify that someone sent us money”.

Maerman , to asklemmy in What’s your “I can’t believe other people don’t do this” hack?

So I play guitar. I had a problem where I would sometimes drop my pick. Then, one day, I had an idea. I took some copper wire and attached it to a pick through a small hole I burned into it with a needle. I wrapped the wire around my finger. Now I physically cannot drop my pick.

Geometrinen_Gepardi ,
stuckgum , to linux in WSL vs. Dual Booting vs. virtualbox

Dual boot

rglullis , to fediverse in Celebrities will never adopt the Fediverse until usernames are centralized.
@rglullis@communick.news avatar

If you are that famous or worried about trademark, you shouldn’t be using someone else’s server. Tom Hanks can just buy e.g tomhanks.actor domain and set up the @[email protected] AP actor.

I keep repeating this: the weird part is that we still have all these companies and institutions being okay with depending on someone else’s namespace. Having the NYT still announcing their Twitter or Instagram for social media presence is the same as using aol.com for their email.

ColdWater , (edited ) to unixporn in Check out the work of @[email protected]
@ColdWater@lemmy.ca avatar

Let face it, most of us probably thought this is lit back in the day (2012-2015), we’re spoiled by minimalism

ColdWater , to linux in best linux terminal emulator
@ColdWater@lemmy.ca avatar

The one with your distro shipped with

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines