LOL a tankie (read: genocide denialist) talking about some genocide denial? That’s what I am referencing dipshit, both of you have the tendency to do the same, you just pick and choose which genocides to deny. Go fist your own dickhole.
I’ve never heard of it before, it looks like a smartphone that doesn’t do anything other than have the spotify app? Like is there any mapping or calling built in? And to lock hardware like this behind their premium subscription is wildly, not mildly infuriating.
All it provides is a simplified ui and voice control, the same voice control as the Spotify app. It doesn’t even play the audio, it is a remote for the app on your phone which is doing the real work.
Man we’ve hit the point where people don’t even know about Sirius or XM radio do they? You paid to listen and you had to pay for the receiver, oh and likely an adapter to get it to work on the vehicle too.
I got a SiriusXM antenna thing and they paid me for it lol
My car radio (a Pioneer one I installed many years ago) supports SiriusXM; I just had to get the right receiver for it. SiriusXM were having a sale where you’d pay $70 for the receiver but they’d give you a $70 rebate, making it free. During the rebate period, Crutchfield had a sale where they reduced the price of the receiver to $30. I bought it for $30, filled in the $70 rebate form, and they gave me the whole $70 rebate.
I’ve been on a $5/month promotional plan for a few years. Whenever the price goes up, I complain to them and they reduce it back down. It’s a pretty good service for $5/month, since you get both satellite and streaming included. Satellite is good since it works all over the USA - good for road trips.
Oh jeez that’s not a bad deal at all, and that’s almost what I was doing. I would just let the subscription/deal lapse and they would call and ask why I didn’t renew. Told them I’m not paying $15 a month and than they offer the $60 for a year or 2 years.
At the time they didn’t even have dedicated car units, you had to have one of their portable units, and an am/fm adapter or tape adapter.
Because that’s their data. You can’t go deleting it. You’re the product, friend. My baby powder doesn’t get to decide it doesn’t want to go between my buttcheeks
Part of this has to do with people creating spammy mass like/unlike follow/unfollow bots to grow accounts disingenuously. They just rapid fire like and follow stuff on IG so those people will return the favor in kind and then the bot later goes back and undoes those actions. Rinse and repeat. So it’s kinda understandable why they throttle this behavior.
It would make any sense if they didn’t force you to make 1 request every hour or even longer to only to delete 100 of you likes/comments/story interactions from your almost 10 year old account.
I’d say climate apocalypse and climate societal collapse are the same thing. Apocalypse doesn’t mean extinction, otherwise how would we have a post-apocalyptic world?
Isn’t pre-installed on well known machines by well known brands.
Popular applications (whether productivity, creativity, or games) do not work out of the box that people want. It doesn’t matter that alternatives exist, or that you can use things like Wine. If it’s more than just click the icon, it’s too much.
If things cannot be done purely through touch / the mouse, it is too hard for most people.
If things cannot be done purely through touch / the mouse, it is too hard for most people.
100%. Even as a power-user (understatement) who overwhelmingly prefers keyboard input to control things when I'm "gettin' stuff done", I will sometimes miss the general consideration level of Windows' input handling when it comes to mouse and especially touch. Mouse is pretty damn good these days on Linux, but touch...
Touch is abysmal. A ton of modern laptops have touchscreens, or are actually 2-in-1s that fold into tablets, etc, and the support is just barely there, if at all. I'm not talking about driver support - this is often fairly acceptable. My laptop's touch and pen interface worked right out of the box... technically. But KDE Plasma 5 with Wayland- an allegedly very modern desktop stack- is not pleasant when I fold into tablet mode.
The sole (seriously, I've looked) Wayland on-screen-keyboard, Maliit, is just terrible. No settings of any kind (there is a settings button! it is not wired to anything, it does nothing), no language options, no layout options (the default layout is abysmal and lacks any 'functional' keys like arrows, pgup/dn, home/end, delete, F keys, tab, etc), and most egregiously, it resists being manually summoned which is terrible because it does not summon itself at appropriate times. Firefox is invisible to it. KRunner is invisible to it. The application search bar is invisible to it. It will happily pop up when I tap into Konsole, but it's totally useless as it is completely devoid of vital keys. Touch on Wayland is absolutely pointless.
Of course, there is a diverse ecosystem of virtual keyboards and such on Xorg! However, Xorg performance across all applications is typically abysmal (below 1FPS) if the screen is rotated at all. This is evidently a well known issue that I doubt will ever be fixed.
In the spirit of Open Source Software, and knowing that simply complaining loudly has little benefit for anyone, I have at several times channeled my frustration towards developing a reasonable Wayland virtual keyboard, but it's a daunting project fraught with serious problems and I have little free-time, so it's barely left its infancy in my dev folder, and in the meanwhile I reluctantly just flip my keyboard back around on the couch with a sigh, briefly envious of my friend's extremely-touch-capable Windows 2-in-1.
I echo your frustrations with Maalit. I am running Arch on my Surface Pro 7 and very frequently I have to snap in the keyboard just to get myself out of a situation where touch doesn’t work. Maalit also has this bug where it will push and resize windows as if it was visible even though it is hidden.
Regarding the Firefox issue, it helps if you enable it’s Wayland backend by passing MOZ_ENABLE_WAYLAND=1 to it. Maalit should properly pop whenever you tap on a text box.
Thank you - I was already aware of this, actually, but I choose to leave it disabled because when this is set, touchscreen drag-scrolling of webpages breaks and it selects text as though it were a mouse click-drag instead. As it turns out, I barely use Maliit anyway because of its other deficiencies, but I definitely touch-scroll my browser a lot, even in laptop mode. A generally disappointing dilemma!
Weird! Touch scrolling actually improves for me with the Wayland backend so that’s an odd issue indeed! There’s gotta be a trick to it, but I am unsure of what that is at the moment.
I also had this problem where touch scrolling on Firefox selects text instead (on ubuntu). It does however work OOTB for me on fedora, so it’s the main distro on that machine.
At this point I'm just glad I migrated to GNU/Linux way before touch input was a common thing. I never experienced it on Windows and the only way I experienced it on GNU/Linux is with it behaving like simple mouse clicks. I literally have no idea what else to expect, so I expect nothing and I don't get disappointed.
Using touch on Windows has definitely set my expectations much higher than the reality on Linux right now, so this is a good call! You won't know what you're missing, so it's not going to bug you. I kind of wish I could return to this blissful ignorance. I have another 2-in-1 with Windows 11 on it in the house and anytime I look at it to keep it patched up and fix issues for its user, it reminds me very effectively of how far behind my 2-in-1 is with touchscreen interactions :(
I have been tempted by GNOME several times, but I disagree with some of their design choices and find them a bit frustrating. I feel that it's fairly strongly-opinionated software. The benefits, of course, are obvious: internal consistency that leads to a higher quality experience. But, only if you buy-in to some overarching design philosophy. That's one of the reasons I left Windows! I also have a suite of Kwin scripts that make my life a lot easier, so it's pretty hard to leave Plasma at this point.
Still, that keyboard has tempted me a lot nonetheless...
Me too. I love the look of Adwaita, but some of their choices I can’t get past, like not having a system tray. I’m really excited for Cosmic, it looks like it will blend the styling of GNOME with much of KDE’s customization!
I agree with the touchscreen thing-- I have one of those foldy-aroundy 2-in-1 laptops, and the only way I’ve been able to get touch to work properly (as in not like a mouse) is gnome wayland. Kde wayland’s fine too, but like you said there’s no included keyboard whereas gnome has one built-in. Also another wayland osk you could try is wvkbd (tho I’ve never used it beyond “hey what’s this”).
Lenovo does sell Linux laptops and then there is the HP Dev One. Also according to Canonical over 160 Dell laptop, desktop, and workstation models ship with Ubuntu preinstalled.
While this is true, if someone goes to a shop and buys a “PC”, it will have Windows 100% of the time.
You have to look to get Linux preinstalled on stuff, or pick the choice yourself. People buying PCs aren’t picking Windows, it’s just what comes with them.
Well, Russia not being in the image doesn’t mean they are not fascist, still wonder why OP wouldn’t add them though, hope they are not a Russia shill 💀
I would say both sides are fascist Libya is the best example for Nato fascism. They nationalised the oil to benefit the people and stop western cooperations from pillaging them and got invaded by Nato forces to go from one of the most prosperous countries in Africa to a failed state with an open air slave market. Had nothing to do with human rights. And Ukraine has a Nazi problem. Not a reason to invade of course (I hate the Russian government too) but just reality.
Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and Samantha Power were the three principal advocates of war against Libya in 2011, setting the North African nation on a free fall ever since. Demonstrations broke out in some Libyan cities against the government of late Muammar Gaddafi in February 2011, in what became known as the “Arab Spring” that engulfed the region. However, Libya’s promised spring turned into a destructive autumn during which Gaddafi was murdered on 20 October, 2011, and Libya was left anguishing in lawlessness, courtesy of the three women.
Samatha Power currently runs USAID, nominated for the position by Biden. Until recently Susan Rice ran the Domestic Policy Council, also picked by Biden.
To say they’re only killing Nazis is a bit of a trolling oversimplification, and I wouldn’t essentialize Russia’s motives down to only liberating the people of the Donbas, but “russian troll” is RussiaGate BlueAnonsense.
As to whether Russia is doing imperialism, I’ll copypasta myself:
Honest question from a non-communist, based on your reply here. Does one need to support Putin to be a Marxist?
In a word, no. In a few more words, support for Russia (not Putin, as historical materialists don’t subscribe to great man theory) is only a partial, temporary, tactical one, in the context of imperialist liberation. Russia is still a capitalist state, though, so it’s a two stage strategy: first liberate colonized bourgeois states from colonizer states, and second revolution within those liberated bourgeois states.
Russia is an interesting case: it has already liberated itself from the post-Soviet “shock therapy” neocolonizers. This occurred during Putin’s administration, which is why he is especially hated by the US. So now the support for Russia is in the context of keeping the colonizers from recolonizing it, and supporting Russia to the extent that it helps other states liberate themselves. But Russia isn’t trying to “liberate” Ukraine, at least not all of Ukraine. It’s trying to resolve the genocidal attacks on the people of the Donbas, and it’s trying to resolve the imperialist military expansion at its border.
How does that work, does the downloader just cycling though seeding torrents or do they all stay active? I feel like there would be so much torrents over time it would slow everything down.
I looked it up, and qBittorrent can easily handle hundreds of torrents, apparently. I haven’t noticed any problems running 180-ish. I’ll probably try to keep it capped to 300 or something like that.
I’m considering getting a seedbox because with my current storage setup, and my unwillingness to keep the vpn up all the time 2.0 is the best I can do.
I use Gluetun for that. It’s a docker container that sets up the VPN and qBittorrent in two containers and routes all traffic from qBittorrent through the VPN.
It doesn’t matter if you are downloading it, what matters is that you’ll play it and/or won’t get the “Definitive Edition” or whatever is called the crap they are changing for this one.
Several countries use a dayfine system, we in Sweden have used dayfines since 1931, Finland since 1921, Germany since 1969, There are a few more countries using the system, but I could not quickly find any historical data about them.
A day-fine, day fine, unit fine or structured fine is a unit of payment for a legal fine which is based on the offender’s daily personal income. It is intended as a punishment financially equivalent to incarceration for one day without salary, scaled to equal impacts on both high- and low-income offenders. An analogy may be drawn with income tax, which is also proportional to income, or even levied at higher rates for higher incomes.
Jurisdictions employing the day-fine include Denmark (Danish: dagbøde), Estonia (Estonian: päevamäär), Finland (Finnish: päiväsakko), France (French: Jour-amende), Germany (German: Tagessatz), Sweden (Swedish: dagsbot), Switzerland, and Macao.
Great idea but still unfair. It is the same as a high salaried person being able to afford quitting their job and take a couple of months to look for another or go on parental leave. They can afford it because they have savings. A day fine will also hit the poorest the most, because they don’t have savings to afford paying such a fine.
Also, this would mean people with no money or income could do what they want without any consequences.
Im also failing to understand why successful people should supposedly be charged more. It doesnt make a difference if the person who committed the crime has more or less money, so they should be charged according to the crime, not what they have.
Im also failing to understand why successful people should supposedly be charged more. It doesnt make a difference if the person who committed the crime has more or less money, so they should be charged according to the crime, not what they have.
So the idea is that if something is a $10,000 fine, it will stop the average person from doing it, but it might not stop directors/owners of companies and it definitely won’t stop a company from doing it themselves.
If you believe one is wealthier because they deserve it, through success, hardwork, etc , then shouldn’t these apparent shining examples of success also be held to a higher standard?
Or should we somehow decide the economic cost of someone doing something illegal, then charge everyone that? For example: the risk of speeding increases quadratically (E =1/2mV^2), the higher the speed. I.e the risk of death. Do we then set a speed limit, anything above which is considered illegal. Above this level, a fine or charge is incurred based on the likelihood of a crash killing someone upto and including the cost of one’s life.
But then it’s legal to kill someone if you are wealthy enough, and the poor are inherently the most moral group.
Or we could flat fine it; which disproportionately punishes the poor. Which is like saying “ohh you are poor and that’s your fault, just like speeding. Get fucked lol”.
I’m sure that there are other options but it’s a good idea to consider the potential ramifications of fees, fines, and other punishment structures, and how they influence the society we live in.
It doesnt make a difference if the person who committed the crime has more or less money
Of course it does. A poor person might find themselves in a situation where they have to steal groceries or other necessities for pure survival. If I were poor and needed diapers and there was no governmental support program available I would also steal them. Or formula or whatever. A rich person can afford all of that. If they steal groceries it is for the thrill, not out of necessity.
Also, note that really bad crimes (murder for example) are not fined. In that sense it does not matter what the financial status of the perpetrator is. Although filthy rich people can sometimes even buy their way out of these crimes.
You have a point but what about stuff like traffic violations? Nobody NEEDS to commit one, so should these fines be the same for everyone?
Also, following your example, person A making 75k/year and person B making 150k/year both have no necessitiy to steal groceries. Yet, if the fine was income-dependent, person B would have to pay way more.
if the goal of the fine is to deter people from committing a traffic violation, the person making $150k will not be equally deterred compared to the person making $75k. If the fine has too little impact, it no longer works as a deterrent. This is especially true for things like parking tickets, where you aren’t necessarily putting yourself or others in danger like you might be for speeding (though, assuming the two people only differ in their income and all other variables – like how willing they are to drive dangerously – remain equal, then the point still stands).
Okay but then what about those poor people mentioned above that need to steal for necessities. Wouldn’t we want to deter them the most (as they are the most likely to commit the act)?
It doesnt seem logical to me to say that we should increase the fines to deter (wealthy) people more and at the same time say that we should lower the fines so (poor) people that are currently deterred can afford to break the law (?)…
stealing != traffic violation. while stealing may have a fine associated with it, it’s generally based on restitution for the goods stolen + legal fees etc. So, you’re moving the goal posts on me, and my feelings about how to handle theft of necessities is tangential to the discussion (for the record, my feelings are: if you see someone stealing necessities, no you didn’t).
You seem to not be getting that the goal should be equal deterrence regardless of income or wealth or whatever the most fair metric happens to be. IDK what the baseline fine should be, nor what the most fair way to scale the fines should be b/c i’m a chemist, not a sociologist or legal scholar. But at the end of the day, if the only punishment is a fine, the wealthy don’t have to give a shit.
Edit: for #2, let’s use time instead of money. If instead of paying a $1000 fine, you could do community service. But the “value” of your community service is tied to your wage/salary. So, someone making $10/hr has to do 100 hrs of community service, while someone else making $100/hr only has to do 10 hrs of community service. Is that still fair in your view?
Lets focus on non-necessity acts here (e. g. traffic violations).
Deterring people is not the only goal, it also needs to be fair/appropriate. And this is where, IMO, the income-adjusted fines fail.
Fines should be adjusted depending on the offense commited, possibly also taking into account the intentions. Personal wealth is not a factor that seems reasonable to me to take into account regarding the fairness.
Essentially, I believe that everybody should be treated equally before the law. Nobody should be treated better or worse (or have a better or worse punishment) just because of their social status. That’s why I believe that fixed fines are fair and the suggested varying punishments are not. I do recognize that they may deter wealthier people less.
I agree that everyone should be equal under the law, but that doesn’t mean that fixed fines are fair. The same amount of money has a different value to different people, and that perceived value changes depending on one’s income and wealth.
IDK if you saw my edit in my previous response with the community service example, but I think that might help clear up where we’re diverging. If it takes me 10 hours of work to make enough money to pay the fine, but it takes you 100 hours of work to pay the fine for the exact same offense because our salaries are different, were we really punished equally?
I guess that depends on the metric you use. You say they should be punished by time (and so people who earn money more quickly should have to pay more). However, I see many problems with that and I think it would result in much less fair fines than now.
Picture two persons, one living in the countryside, one in a big city. The second person earns considerably more than the first because life in the city is just more expensive. Both persons have the same amount of money left at the end of the month (after paying the bells etc) but income-adjusted fines would mean person B would have to pay way more.
If it’s posession-bases instead (i.e. your fines depend on what you have/own) then what about some person who inherited a large house that is worth lots of money and has an otherwise normal job. This person may also have the same amount of money left at the end of the month as the other two persons but because of his big house, he’d have to pay even more, potentially sell his house because of a small offense.
Do you think that rich people should have to serve shorter prison sentences because their time is more valuable? Do you at least SEE the parallel I’m trying to draw here?
And I already admitted that I don’t know what the optimal metric is. I just know that a flat fine that is the same for everyone, without taking into account their financial situation at all, is unfair.
Do you think that rich people should have to serve shorter prison sentences
Of course not. I completely get your point, you say (correct me if I’m wrong) that time is a fair metric for everyone. I respect that.
I agree, however I think money is too. Sure - some people have more or less money, and some people live longer or shorter lives. But everyone can still do the same in one hour and everyone can still buy the same things for 10€.
What I think is UNFAIR is trying to “convert” one metric to the other depending on personal wealth. If I get a fine, it should be a fixed amount of money IMO and if you charge me with time in some way then it should be a fixed amount of time.
Well we went down a road that I think we need to track back.
Poor people committing “necessary” crimes is not the focus and should not be. The whole idea of necessary crimes that should not be punished is awful - we should focus on building a society where people don’t end up in a position where they have to steal (etc.) to survive. If we are already thinking of how to better jurisdiction I’d argue we have space to assume we can also better their situation in general. We want to deter them from crimes the most, yes, but not by scaring them with the consequences of being caught - we want to deter them by making them unnecessary. No person should be poor, period.
I think what this comes down to is the question of fines themselves. It has almost something catholic about it. You buy yourself out of punishment. I’d argue that this concept is flawed in itself, no matter how you adjust it.
My guess is that this is what the post was supposed to say. Money in itself isn’t too much of a fair concept, or a just one. But punishment, law enforcement, etc, should be, despite taking place in a capitalist society.
What it comes down to would probably be something like social service (my guess). Is the crime committed violent and does the perpetrator pose a severe security risk to society? Then a correction facility that focuses on healing, mental and physical health, rehabilitation and reintegration into society should be the choice. The crime was something that could also be fined? Cut the fine, make it a social service. Picking up trash from sideroads, cleaning public toilets. This will benefit the public/society and no one can buy their way out of it.
Well, that would just shift the problem: Now, instead of wealthy people being less deterred, it’s the people with a bunch of free time that are less deterred (college kids screwing around, people with no job)…
Also, it doesnt benefit the society any more that the fine’s money would (assumuning the community service would be equivalent to the current monetary value). (There are also other problems like verifying the work is actually done and also small fines, like, am I supposed to pick up trash from the sidewalk for 2 minutes for jaywalking?)
A percentage of income still isn’t equitable though.
If you’re destitute a week’s income means you starve.
If you’re a millionnaire a week’s income stings bit doesn’t affect much.
If you’re a billionnaire there is a good chance you don’t technically have an income, and if you do you can lose half of your wealth without feeling it.
This is true, but you could still have a progressive fine. Very good point with the billionaire, though. They live in a completely different world, in terms of how their wealth flow works. Still, it seems like an alternative fine system could be worked out that would hit them hard.
The real solution is to remove the classes so high above everyone that the rules don’t apply. This is a difficult problem only because we’re talking about people who are so ludicrously wealthy a fine for literal hundreds of millions of dollars wouldn’t make them homeless.
I agree. John Oliver once referred to billionaires as something like a bug in the structure of the system, and I wholeheartedly agree with that analysis. Unfortunately, they’re a bug that’s not so easily dislodged. Until then, designing systems that are able to deal with their existence is the best way to deal with them.
The billionaire might not feel it, but the money gained could be significant for all sorts of good things that help lift the burdon of the lower class.
More like do nothing. Sure if everyone follows spec nothing will break from using the wrong usb-c cable in the wrong usb-c port but it’s common to end in a situation were literally nothing happens.
Yes, but I’m pointing out how the cable is part of it in ways that wasn’t true for many older standards. So if I plug a non-data cable into a data USB-c port (say a digital camera with AAA / LR6 batteries) into a computers USB-C port then nothing happens. Same if I try to charge the camera by plugging it into a USB-c wall plug. Or if try to plug my phone into the USB-c charging port on my laptop, no matter the cable since neither phone nor laptop has the function to charge other devices. Etc etc.
I work IT and while I don’t work directly in support anymore I still get people at the office coming to me for support because I used to and we’ve outsourced it now. So I know first hand how confusing USB-C is to average users.
Even if you use a data cable, it might not have the pins/wires for usb 1.1 fallback meaning a keyboard or mouse won’t work with it. Or it might support low power only. I had to buy a usbc cable tester to validate which ones might actually work with what.
My favorite is that not all chargers support all voltages. I have a few that do 5v, 9v, and 20v, but if your device asks for 12v, you’re out of luck, you either don’t get anything, or it fails back to 9v which isn’t enough to accomplish what the device wants to do (like charge). Still, it’s standards compliant!
The standard explicitly allows but doesn’t require support of any subset of standards so you never REALLY know what that cable or charger in your hand or the devices you’re holding can actually do without finding specs in docs… It’s really infuriating. The idea of USB-C is better than the reality, which makes the push to standardize on the connector not nearly as cool as it could be.
Plug a USB-C screen into a USB-C port. Will it work?
Maybe? If the manufacturer has wired the port to the GPU for DP/HDMI alt mode it might.
… but you’ve used this display on this laptop before?
Try another port! Nope, still nothing.
Maybe it’s the cable? Rummage around through your cables and try a few out. Hope you don’t have any from the 2010s because there’s a good chance they’ll ruin your device.
The screen works! But performance is terrible, why? It’s running in DisplayLink mode.
The most common thing I see is people confusing usb-c with thunderbolt, and using the former on docks and expecting it to provide power and transmit data.
2004: non-IT person loses the cable that came with their device, has to harass IT/their tech friend to even know what type of cable they are missing, goes to a store and pays a massive mark up for a cable that is not functionally better than a cheap one but the brick and mortar stores do not stock any cheap ones. Next year they will upgrade some component or another and need to buy an adapter for the cable that will also have heinous markup. A year after that they upgrade the component on the otherside of the cable and this time have to throw the cable and adapter in a box of loose cables.
2024: non-IT person loses their device cable, shrugs and plugs in their phone charger cable… it works and is 4 times faster than the lost one, it will serve until the new one arrives they just ordered from a “top 11 usb -c cables to buy in 2024 list” they found on the first page of google, they could of got a better deal if they asked you but it’s still a good enough cable and cost 1/4 of an aux cable in 2004. they still have a box of random cables in their cupboard but they didn’t need to dig through it, they know what usb-c looks like from handling their phone 18 hours a day.
lemmy.ml
Top