I go there about once a week to see if there are new communities I might be interested in. I’m on a selfhosted single-user instance, so my “all” is identical to my “subscribed” and this is how I populate my feed.
I’m a little curious: If you unsubscribe from something, does it disappear from your All? Or is it enough that a user in an instance was at some point or another subscribed?
All is the collection of communities that anyone on your instance is subscribed to. I believe once everyone unsubscribes, new posts are not automatically retrieved.
It’s tedious, but I found just looking at lists of communities to be more helpful. If something looks interesting, open it up, check it out, and subscribe. Browsing your subscribed communities is an infinitely better experience. Plus, if you’re willing to take the time blocking communities, I feel like that takes just as much time as scrolling through a list of ones for potential matches for your interests.
Subscribed is for the communities that I want to actively engage with every or close to every post that shows up. All/Home are for browsing popular content that I don’t want in my sub feed (memes, news, other smaller communities, etc)
How else will people find a reason to complain about, I CLICKED ALL, AND I SEE A BUNCH OF STUFF I DON’T WANT TO SEE. HOW TO I BAN THE STUFF I DON’T LIKE, INSTEAD OF using the subscribe feature, like a normal person.
Leftism is inherenty tied to technology, especially new. It’s part of its lifestyle. EVERY new, massive social “site” (or online service) is expected to be left-leaning by default. It may later change its political viewpoint, but in its relative infancy it’s left.
Rightism is more about actions taking place in real-world. As such, the technology isn’t perceived as more than a tool, used for specific purpose only, rather than part of, or the foundation of a lifestyle.
…and of course there’s a plethora of alternative political views, options and convictions that are a mix of either extremes of the spectrum - if you meet a person online, it shouldn’t be surprisied to learn about “pro-life”, but also “anti-Trump” and similarly puzzling approaches to various aspects of life.
tl;dr: it’s not about bots. It’s because Lemmy/Mastodon isn’t popular enough to serve as a tool for right-wing politics.
Ayn Rand style, “Don’t tread on me” objectivists, no. But they just co-opted the term. Libertarianism is pretty much anarchism, which is incomoatible with right wing beliefs, no matter what an-caps try and tell you. A right wing social order necessitates hierarchy, which anarchism is diametrically opposed to.
While yes, libertarian is originally a leftist term, that’s not what I meant.
I meant the first comment saying most people on new tech are leftists is wrong. Most people who are technophilic are liberals. As in US style Democrat liberals. Which are NOT leftists. At all.
Libertarians promote “natural” hierarchy; the ones based on slavery, inheritance, and other mechanisms of white supremacy. And ultimately, the hierarchy of money which translates to power. To say they don’t believe in hierarchy when they’re the party of the robber baron who believe the bosses have the right to murder striking workers, even child workers, is frankly silly.
It’s not on anarchist ideology really because of this and only appeals to disinfranchised people if they haven’t bothered to do the math.
It’s like you only read two words of my comment. The dickhead rightoidswho call themselves libertarian are NOT libertarian. It is a left wing ideology. You cannot have a society that is both right wing and libertarian. It is impossible.
That is exactly why those fuckheads bring in bullshit like “natural hierarchy”, to jam their square beliefs into the round hole that is a classless ideology.
They took a word that already had a meaning, and tried to invert it.
Yes, it is beyond bonkers to suggest that crypto fascists want to flatten hierarchies. That is why it’s maddeningly stupid for them to call themselves libertarians. Agreeing with them and calling them libertarians is just feeding their lie.
My point was that anarchism is not compatible with capitalism because capital is a form of hierarchy.
And I read your post. Yes, tea party libertarians ultimately lean more big government authoritarian than strict libertarians should.
But libertarians, even ones that aren’t in bed with the GOP, aren’t anarchist because they ultimately use the power of money and privilege to create hierarchy and control others. They just don’t want democracy (i.e. governments) interfering in that power.
Depends on which libertarian ideology is being expressed. Left libertarians - anarcho-syndicalists libertarian socialists, anarcho-communists are all libertarians. The right wing of anarchism aren’t leftists, the left wing are.
Yeah crypto bros aren’t exactly leftist, neither is the hypercapitalist Silicon Valley crowd, and I’ve encountered plenty of other tech enthusiasts with worrying opinions.
I’d say I’m generally conservative and have been dabbling in alternative social media for a number of years. Some of the biggest Mastodon instances are/were right leaning. Gab.ai started off as a proprietary site and then migrated to Mastodon. Truth.social was always based on Mastodon. I’ve never been active on them because I don’t like echo chambers though. I’ve never really had a desire to have my thoughts reaffirmed by strangers…
I would assume they’re presence isn’t felt in the fediverse because the concept of de-federating is working? Gab is likely cut off by others and truth social never federated with others to begin with. I don’t think Truth ever intended to though, and really just wanted something they didn’t have to build from scratch.
The only Mastodon instance I actually have an account with now is somewhat right leaning but it’s not their emphasis. Even then I’m not too active on it.
Thanks to Big tech censorship, there are lots of people who are more anti-establishment right on the fediverse. Lots of fairly large instances. Some of them are real nasty pieces of work filled with folks dropping n bombs and swastikas, some of them are filled with some of the sweetest religious right folks you ever met in your life.
I think one of the biggest differences is that you don’t have the Jerry Springer algorithm trying to match up a bunch of black people with a bunch of KKK members. Most far right instances don’t defederate anyone, but many of the far left instances defederate the moment anyone looks at them funny so despite sharing a platform, typically there just isn’t that much engagement between the two groups. In the middle of there are instances that are more than happy to federate with both as long as they aren’t too big of jerks.
Yet despite the clear creation of echo chambers, which I think is inevitable given how freedom of association works so smoothly and easily online, the Fediverse forces them all to “live next to each other”.
It’s not an entirely separate service I need to go on if I want to see what all the Nazi kids are up to these days.
This forced adjacency and inability to create any blocks stronger than defederation (which is pretty weak, really, compared to what other services can do) is going to have overall beneficial effects in the long-run, I think. Though it’ll certainly cause its fair share of headaches too.
I’m actually happy to see the reduction in echo chambers for myself because it does 2 things:
It reminds me that the people I think I disagree with have good points I need to remember, and
It reminds me that the people I think I agree with have terrible points I need to remember.
For someone who thinks for themselves, seeing extremism in some cases actually makes you less extreme because you see it and realize you don’t agree with it at all.
After realizing that it would put a bunch of black guys and a bunch of KKK members in the same space intentionally because it drives overall engagement, it became clear that’s what it was. haha
Yes, I said that. Well technically I said Gab was. Truth was so forked I don’t believe there was even an option to defederate them. They intended on a walled garden on their own.
GIMP has its share of issues, just like any other software. but it’s biggest issue is that somewhere down the line general users got this idea in their head that it was supposed to be a Photoshop clone.
So they go into it with certain expectations and then get frustrated when it doesn’t work that way. People like me, who actually learned GIMP before PS, obviously didn’t go in with the same bias and therefore have a much better grasp on it.
Gimp is not a Photoshop clone. it’s its own piece of kit with it’s own design and feature decisions that some may like and others may not. That’s life. The developers have no obligation to follow any other software design scheme any more than Sony is obligated to follow LGs TV UI. They’re not clones, they’re alternatives.
if you think Gimps only function is to copy Photoshop, you’re in for a bad time. If you want to use gimp as an ALTERNATIVE and go in without the bias, you’ll likely learn your way around a LOT faster.
I’m not excusing Gimps failings. far from it. but I AM saying that half the issue is the Photoshop users thinking that gimp only exists to copy everything from their precious Adobe daddy. And that’s simply not true.
Honestly I feel like this attitude is the reason GIMP’s UX suffers. They’re so determined to be “not like photoshop” that they’re unwilling to fix some of their more boneheaded UI decisions out of fear that they’d be seen as copying photoshop.
That's not exactly my impression from following the design conversations through the years. They're more approaching decisions from the angle of what they think is best, their philosophy is to plainly ignore what others do and follow their own direction. Of course taking inspiration from Photoshop might sometimes be a good thing, if it doesn't conflict with the GIMP way of doing things.
I've noticed in recent years some newcomer devs have had discussions on how to design their contributions, mentioning Photoshop and other alternative ways and there were just conversations about the merits of the different approaches that could be taken and what would fit the GIMP best, without bias.
Anyway, I wasn't aware that GIMP UX suffers, I've never used anything else and am happy with it. It seem logical to me, obviously with fewer features than Photoshop but how much can a couple of guys do and they've had to refactor most of the GIMP for 3.0, but that'll open up for a lot of functionality being added moving forward..
Anyway, I wasn’t aware that GIMP UX suffers, I’ve never used anything else and am happy with it.
My argument here is that by never having used anything else, you wouldn’t necessarily realize how much better other UX choices could have been.
That said, I do have to give the devs some credit, as they have fixed two major issues, by adding single-window-mode and unifying the transform tools. Having each transform be its own separate tool was just awful UX IMO.
The biggest remaining UX problem, in my opinion, is the way GIMP forces layers to have fixed boundaries. Literally no other layer-based image editor has fixed layer boundaries, because it makes very little sense as a concept. Layers should solely be defined by their content, not by arbitrary layer properties set in a dialog box.
In terms of UI sometimes you think something is better merely because you learnt this way. The best example would be windows style desktop versus macos style desktop. I can’t use another desktop than a windows style one, which is why I always used kde and I always hated gnome.
Now I don’t know whether gimp is good enough or not, but it must be said IMO.
If you want to use gimp as an ALTERNATIVE and go in without the bias, you’ll likely learn your way around a LOT faster.
I think this is the key phrase – do you want an alternative (where you might have to learn new ways of doing things), or do you want a clone? GIMP is not a clone, but an alternative.
I also think this gets to something I was told loooooooooong ago, when I was a young lad asking what was the best computer to buy. Someone told me, “Find all the software you want/need to run, and get the computer that will run it all.”
In other words, if you need to use Photoshop, then maybe you don’t use Linux – maybe stick with Mac or (shudder) Windows.
I always love it when Linux users recommend going back to Windows as a option. It takes real maturity to admit that everything is a viable option, and sometimes especially in a professional workplace that Windows and MacOS should both be considered if Linux is limiting your workflow.
@displaced_city_mouse@Adderbox76 yeah I'm fairly OS agnostic, I hate them all...just hate Windows more which I think you might agree with considering the shuddering induced by mentioning Windows 😏 I use ChromeOS, Mac, & iOS daily bc for my uses they are least problematic. Use Win 10 for gaming but looking to switch to Linux not W11 for that and have been dabbling/learning Android & Linux. Honestly it's a good time to be a nerd IMHO.
I’ve migrated to a lot of different programs since switching to Linux: Premiere to Resolve, 3DS Max to Blender, to name a few. And I never expected the switch from Photoshop, which I so dearly love, to whatever good alternative that exists - to be easy. I’m willing to put in the time to learn GIMP, if only it hadn’t such glaring and prominent issues that make it really difficult to use.
I’m not expecting a clone. I’m not expecting the UI to be the same. And, I’m willing to learn this program from the ground up. But I want a consistent experience - an app that works. For me, GIMP gets in the way a lot; making things unnecessarily difficult just for the sake of being “different”.
I don’t mean to hate on GIMP. It works very well for people who like it. But we all have different preferences when it comes to software, and in the end - It’s just, not a good alternative for what I prefer. I’m willing to learn something new, but from my experience, GIMP will have (and has) a lot of icks that I just need to “put up with” to be usable. Especially efficiency. GIMP does not feel efficient, like at all. Might be because I haven’t learned it, but even Resolve felt efficient the first time I used it.
I don’t have the same experience with Krita whatsoever. And sure, maybe Krita is a little closer to Photoshop than GIMP is, but I much prefer Krita’s overall experience much more than GIMP - even if it’s missing some more advanced features.
I will stick to Krita, most likely, as that’s what I find myself most comfortable with. But it’s been interesting to hear what everyone else’s experiences are.
I think it’s a distraction from the actual interactions. Same way karma is.
I’m all for supporting instances and open source developers, but any kind of reward for a donation creates wrong incentives. Donation is called a donation because it’s a gift without expecting something in return.
I can understand the mindset, but I worry most people don’t think like this.
The thing is, that small rewards for “donations” will likely make the people much more willing to spend money in the first place. Even if it’s as small as a sticker on someone else’s post that costs the servers involved like a handful of API calls. But when a 1€ award is 3x as popular as the 1€ donation, it will greatly increase the funds available to the instance and, hence better servers, more features etc
There is a reason many YouTubers sell discord roles. Many people are willing to spend 5€/month for a stupid discord rank, so I don’t see why it’s wrong to profit of people willing to buy awards
If you prefer direct donation, having something like awards won’t stop you but if someone wants to buy that overpriced sticker, they can as well.
I fully agree with you, karma “whoring” is a serious problem on reddit, awards could lead to the same behavior here if implemented.
Donations are the best way to support the platform, if you want to be “visible” as donator, opencollective allows you to post a message about it, there’s also a sort of top donators page, that’s more than enough in my opinion.
You should read The Five Love Languages. This is an actual thing. Different people express and receive love differently. “Acts of Kindness” is one of them. My partner loves when i do things, and i know this, so i do it because i know it makes her feel loved. And that’s hot.
I actually just listened to that episode yesterday, that whole show is pretty great (also, the one author’s other podcast - 5-4 (“a podcast about how much the supreme court sucks”) - is consistently amazing), but for anybody out there who doesn’t do podcasts and wants a summary,
tl;dl All the good ideas in it were stolen from other places and the author is a secret fundamentalist who thinks women need to get back in the kitchen and gay people need to get back in the closet. For example, this Q & A article from 2013
Q: “My son has recently told us that he is gay. I’m having a very hard time dealing with it. How can I help him with this and still show love?”
Gary Chapman: Disappointment is a common emotion when a parent hears one of their children indicate that he/she is gay. Men and women are made for each other—it is God’s design. Anything other than that is outside of that primary design of God. Now I’m not going to try explain all the ins and outs of homosexuality, but what I will say is this—we love our children no matter what. Express your disappointment and/or your lack of understanding, but make it clear that you love them and that you will continue to love them no matter what. I would also encourage you to ask your child to do some serious reading and/or talk to a counselor to try to understand him/herself better while continuing to affirm your love.
For the episode on the book, Shamshiri went back to the original ’90s text, which contains, among other debunked gender stereotypes, an assertion in the “Physical Touch” chapter that men want sex all the time, whereas women need emotional connection for intimacy to be satisfying. (Nowhere in Chapman’s books is any attention paid to the romantic dynamics of queer couples—at one point, Shamshiri jokes that such relationships are “like the female orgasm, not discussed or implied.”) In one chapter, a woman tells Chapman that her husband verbally berates her and refuses counseling. Chapman, in the 1992 version, suggests that the husband’s love language is physical touch and counsels the wife to start initiating sex frequently and more aggressively. When she balks because sex with him makes her feel used and unloved, he advises her to draw upon Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount in order to gather strength. In the anecdote that appears in later editions, Shamshiri mentions, Chapman simply suggests that the wife be more physically affectionate in general. Although the sexual mandate is less explicit there, the idea that sex is a sacrifice that women must endure in heterosexual marriage persists.
tl;dl All the good ideas in it were stolen from other places and the author is a secret fundamentalist who thinks women need to get back in the kitchen and gay people need to get back in the closet. For example, [this Q & A article from 2013]
I missed this part and was wondering to myself wtf you were on about!
I was hoping someone would bring up love languages! As someone who speaks gift giving and acts of service, when someone does something for me or gives me a truly thoughtful gift for me I adore it. On the other hand if I don’t see those languages spoken, it makes me feel as though I’m not thought about as much as those I love and it can breed resentfulness.
The worst thing is growing up and seeing them less and less to the point where once you do end up seeing them, they look WAY older than your mental image of them. Cherish your parents while you have them
My mom will be 89 in a couple of months and it’s so hard to watch her get so frail when her mind is still so sharp. I recently started recording her stories, like how she became a Univac programmer in the 60’s. I cherish every minute because I hear the clock ticking and it’s SO loud and never goes away. I’m going to miss my mom so much. It’s like my heart’s already breaking under the weight of losing her.
Spaniard here. I did some remote work with a North American company and in my profile my race was “Latino”. I tried to explain I’m caucasian but it was futile.
I had that exact conversation at work a few days ago. Someone was insisting that Spaniards are Latino, so I asked them if Spain is in Latin America or Europe. That was the key to them eventually figuring it out.
When I was in similar situations I'd point out similaities to them. So e.g. if spaniards are latinos because they speak spanish, then people from the UK are all Americans because they speak English.
Dependent on the level of education, you might have to flip them both ("US people are all english") because they might actually believe that English people are US-emmigrants.
I’m mostly Sicilian and Irish but my great grandmother on my mom’s side is Spanish. People usually don’t know where I’m from so just settle on thinking I’m Jewish, but I had people think I was Latino more recently. I’m more used to it happening to my mom because she’s a lot more tan than I am.
I believe it’s a legal thing where HR has to track the ethnicity (if applicant discloses) due to equal employment. Basically the US federal government wants to know if a company is discriminating against a protected class during hiring and employment
Europe has a different history with heritage and bloodlines of indigenous people so it makes sense it’s not as big of a conversation there.
I’m aus, we’re a settlement too, therefore conversations of heritage matter a great deal. Speaking in practical terms, there can be potential benefits to identifying as indigenous in the form of welfare due to the disadvantages indigenous people face.
Europe has a different history with heritage and bloodlines of indigenous people so it makes sense it’s not as big of a conversation there.
In Aus, we’re a settlement too, therefore conversations of heritage matter a great deal. Speaking in practical terms, there can be potential benefits to identifying as indigenous in the form of welfare due to the disadvantages indigenous people face.
An extra reason (or even the main one) is that we have a bad history when it comes to racial registration. The countries that suffered the worst during the Holocaust were the ones that had a registry of the Jewish population that the Nazis could just look into when they took over.
The downside is that it’s much harder to identify racial profiling at work for example. It’s also basically impossible to see if violence on POC is more prevelant.
If they came to power again but with access to people’s 23andMe or Ancestry results, things would get really scary very fast. Most white people I know who took it aren’t actually 100% white, including myself. I’m a little bit black. It’s just not enough that I would justify changing what I’m listed as on documents.
You’re 100% free to decline including it on any personnel file or application (with the exception of acting/modeling). It’s also self-identifying.
Consider that as a multi-racial pluralistic society - our values will be different than a European country whose major ethnic groups are the indigenous people.
We have an unfortunately long legacy of systematic racism issues. Communities or color experience slower emergency response times, fewer school resources and teacher pay, redlining and gerrymandered districting, food deserts, fewer public transportation options, and often fewer per capita polling stations on Election Day.
Until race stops being an observable factor for community outcomes, we still have a lot of work to do.
Many organizations see and understand this. As part of their sense of corporate social responsibility, companies make a good faith effort to hire from a ethnically diverse pool of candidates. If all your candidates are white - a company needs to ask itself if that’s a reflection of their own hiring biases or if that’s a systemic issue within the talent pool? It’s good to know these things - because industry surveys are constant - which help local leaders, non-profit organizations, colleges and universities, and governments do their jobs.
Meeting diversity goals is good for a variety of reasons. Importantly in capitalism, it’s good to investors because customers tend to prefer supporting diverse companies. Perhaps more importantly than that, different backgrounds offer different modes of thinking when it comes to problem solving. Crowd sourcing from a bigger idea pool is good for productivity.
For very similar reasons it's illegal to do in European countries. Keeping track of people's ethnicity is something which is mostly associated with Nazi's.
You’re 100% free to decline including it on any personnel file or application (with the exception of acting/modeling). It’s also self-identifying.
Consider that as a multi-racial pluralistic society - our values will be different than a European country whose major ethnic groups are the indigenous people.
We have an unfortunately long legacy of systematic racism issues. Communities or color experience slower emergency response times, fewer school resources and teacher pay, redlining and gerrymandered districting, food deserts, fewer public transportation options, and often fewer per capita polling stations on Election Day.
Until race stops being an observable factor for community outcomes, we still have a lot of work to do.
Many organizations see and understand this. As part of their sense of corporate social responsibility, companies make a good faith effort to hire from a ethnically diverse pool of candidates. If all your candidates are white - a company needs to ask itself if that’s a reflection of their own hiring biases or if that’s a systemic issue within the talent pool? It’s good to know these things - because industry surveys are constant - which help local leaders, non-profit organizations, colleges and universities, and governments do their jobs.
Meeting diversity goals is good for a variety of reasons. Importantly in capitalism, it’s good to investors because customers tend to prefer supporting diverse companies. Perhaps more importantly than that, different backgrounds offer different modes of thinking when it comes to problem solving. Crowd sourcing from a bigger idea pool is good for productivity.
Over here (Austria) asking about race or processing this information in regards to a job wil land the employer in hot water really quickly, since it opens them up to racism claims.
I used to work for an organization that provided legal, educational, medical and social services to inner-city children and their families. These families were mostly Black and Latino.
If we were hiring for a job that had an equally qualified black and white candidates, the choice is clear. In order to be successful, you need to have good professional relationships with clients. It is far more effective if the client can relate to one’s lived cultural experience. It’s also very important for at-risk children to see relatable adults succeed in a world that has been systemically unfair to them.
In Austria, this hiring process may be considered racist. But here, we recognize that there are a lot of fringe benefits when hiring for diversity.
In fairness, race is not something that’s discussed unless it’s directly related to the role. As stated above, you are free to check “Prefer Not To Say” if an application asks about race. Most of the time, that information is used for census and surveys.
Having done a lot of HR in my life, you’d be surprised how many hiring managers are passively racist.
I’ve seen applications rejected simply because the hiring manager doesn’t want to embarrass themselves mispronouncing a name. Or they assume communication language skills without ever talking to someone. Or they not-so-sublte, “I can just feel this one won’t be a good fit”.
Like, “Really, Bob? What’s on Fatima’s resume gives you that impression? She’s clearly qualified.”
I wonder how much worse the racial wealth gap would be if ‘equal opportunity employment’ wasn’t a thing.
I understand what you mean, that in some specific situations hiring for a specific race can be a benefit, but in cases like that you can hire for something similar that is legal again here too. E.g. you could hire by experience with certain communities, for example. Or you can hire for "sympathy". "This person is personally a good fit to our company and the role". With that point you can hire whoever you want.
This is also the Achilles heel of the anti-discrimination laws, since the hiring manager can just say "The applicant's personality wasn't a good fit" to anyone they want to discriminate against.
And yes, I have personal experience with how racist and sexist some of my bosses have been so far.
In one company, my boss was directly excluding any applications by women for IT roles, because "they would distract the boys in the IT department". Even though all "the boys in the IT department" were in long-term relationships. (Btw, I also really hated it that he called us "the boys" even though we were all ~30).
No difference in benefits, the point is for companies to make themselves accountable that they are helping to improve the racial gap among their ranks. You can’t know that you’re improving, if you don’t keep track of the data behind it.
Fortunately, people of non-European ancestry are treated fairly in Europe, so there is no need to keep tabs if they are being the subject of job loss more often. In the US, people of color and particularly migrants can be discriminated against, instead of welcomed with open arms like they are in Greece, Italy, and France. If there were discrimination in Europe, you could end up with concentrations of ethnic groups in the suburbs of cities like Paris. The people there might protest or riot after perceived injustices, and we wouldn't want that.
I work for an American company and during global meetings when US HR are bringing up race, it feels really weird. Especially when you see that the percentage of white people stays the same and it’s minorities competing with each other.
I’m Australian and the one that really gets me is when Americans refer to indigenous Australians as “African American” because of their skin colour. They’re in no way from Africa or America, but nice job appropriating our native people.
I’m Australian and the one that really gets me is when Americans refer to indigenous Australians as “African American” because of their skin colour. They’re in no way from Africa or America, but nice job appropriating our native people.
Yes they’re native to that land, but they’re not Zik’s Indigenous Australians! That’s what I meant about appropriating them, the way they wrote that was just too ironic.
“Appropriate” in terms of taking literal possesion of something - “our” as in “my bed”, “our car”. I am fairly sure it’s a joke, read the wording again.
Right, and therefore appropriating the natives, whose land he is on. That is the irony. I’m in the US, and they’re not our Native Americans. That’s just not something you can say.
It's like people overcorrecting and using "whom" when "who" really would be correct. Ditto "you and I" vs "you and me". People get corrected enough times to be embarrassed, but still don't have any interest in correct usage, so they just blanket apply what they think is the rule rather than trying to actually learn any of its nuances. It's not a perfect analogy, but I can imagine people just reverting to "African-American" as a no-thought safe bet when referring to brown people.
My company in the UK insisted that I fill in a diversity profile covering a lot of what is generally considered highly sensitive information. Well the only mandatory field was the date completed… so that is all they got.
Its almost funnier to see every news publication constantly refer to it as “X (formerly known as Twitter”), the constant need to remind people of how stupid the decision was it amusing
and to think there was plenty of no windows, no buy mentally when the Deck got announced. I cannot understand why would anyone go down the Windows route on a handheld, specially now that Linux has been so tried and tested
They were probably thinking that they’d use the cheapest Windows license (no gp manager) and make more money by putting bloatware on there via deals with other companies.
I know you know but why are they so short sighted? I just don’t think actual consumer experience is at the forefront of priorities. Deadlines and budgets are.
It totally kills interest in the device though. Its like they think every single buyer is an impulse buyer who just looks at the demo in Best Buy without even looking it up or trying it.
I own an OLED Deck, and while I absolutely love it, it isn’t perfect from a compatibility standpoint. Getting other launchers to work can be a pain, and certain games that the hardware can easily handle have issues due to obnoxious shit like EA’s launcher, e.g. the Dragon Age games. Additionally, mods can be fickle to get working on certain games. The majority of these problems can thankfully be overcome, but implementing the fixes can be tedious/annoying on a handheld.
That all being said, I’m amazed how far gaming on Linux has come. Valve and people like Glorious Eggroll have done excellent work in making Linux gaming possible. I hope as more and more Deck users get accustomed to Linux and make the transition on desktop, that developers start making native Linux clients so all these wrappers aren’t even needed in the first place.
I specifically did so I can use any game service beyond Steam without hacking stuff. I know I can turn on my Ally and use Steam, Gamepass, roms, sail the high seas, virtually anything, out of the box.
There’s no “hacking” involved to use non-steam services on the Deck. Except maybe gamepass but since Microsoft is making that shitty now is it really that important lol?
If you want to play anything with anticheat, you can’t on a steamdeck. And gamepass was my number one reason to not get a steamdeck. I play Xbox too, I might as well get the most bang for my buck if I already subscribe.
Sea of Thieves has a shit ton of Tumbleweed reviews on protondb. You should read them. There’s also a fair amount of other distros that say they work fine. Now my own anecdotal experience, I couldn’t get anything to work on my arch install. But I was dumb as hell and didn’t want to use a desktop environment on a desktop.
I know there are working ones, unfortunately all but overwatch don’t work from current games I play.
This was all in response to why anyone would choose a windows machine. I’m a use case that needs windows. I don’t love that I do, but it is what it is.
I think this is it. Extra margin they can slap on at the last second.
Prosumers aren’t going to care, because if the hardware is still OK, they can just re-install.
But consumers end up buying gear that is hobbled with shiteware.
Fair enough. I’ve never been, don’t much like coffee, and I can’t say I ever plan to go there. They don’t sound like the most pleasant of places to relax in.
Even if you like coffee, they make absolute shit coffee. Go to a local coffee place instead. I like my Vietnamese coffee, so any Vietnamese coffee place will give me much better cup.
i wish the vietnamese places here did sugar free. every time i ask, they act like i grew a new eye right in front of them; but sugar might as well be poison for a diabetic old fart like me.
The defining feature of Vietnamese coffee is sweetened, condensed milk. Personally I don’t think I’ve seen sugar-free condensed milk. Not sure how you could make it.
I guess coconut milk would work. For dairy milk though unsweetened≠sugar free. Looks like there are plenty of unsweetened condensed milks, but I don’t see any that are sugar free. Gotta get rid of the lactose for that.
kbin.life
Top