Yes, and that’s different from everything around sports being made to make you aggressive.
Yes, and that’s different from everything around sports being made to make you aggressive.
The part where sports events aren’t specifically made to elicit aggression?
The OP claimed that aggression caused by sports events is comparable to e.g. crying due to movies. Movies are specifically made to elicit crying. Sports events are not specifically made to elicit aggression. Which part is difficult for you to understand?
Way to completely miss mine!
Dude, the purpose of sports events isn’t to rile people up and have them damage property. The purpose is to entertain. You understand the difference, right? Or do you go apeshit and break all your belongings whenever you’re watching a movie?
The difference is that movies and TV shows are often specifically made to elicit those reactions. Storytelling is essentially a hack that uses our emotions to implant lessons.
The same can’t be said for sports events.
You seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding my point, as I didn’t mention the average person’s intelligence in any way. All I’m saying is that minimizing the effort required to really try multiple distributions is a terrible way of introducing people to Linux. It will only lead to frustration and rejection. Choosing your bread doesn’t require investing dozens of hours.
No, it absolutely is hard, and those are bad comparisons. Growing up you interact with bread and cars, and you build a preference based on what you’re taught and what you experience. If I go into a new store and see a dozen types of bread I’ve never eaten, I can still make inferences about their taste, texture etc. This is not the case with Linux distributions - if I’ve never used Linux before, I literally don’t know what the hell I’m doing.
And it’s absolutely unrealistic to expect your average person to try a few out. They won’t be able to decide on technical grounds, and they’ll have to use the distribution for some time to build enough experience for a preference. Going back to your car example, it’s like suggesting people buy a few cars and decide which one they like (since they don’t have the experience to make judgements based on short test drives) - you’re asking them to invest a lot of time for something they don’t really need or want.
People learn how to do that while growing up. The same doesn’t apply to software, people usually choose what they know.
It’s 2024 and this guy still can’t read.
Okay, but why do you tell me that I’m wrong and keep going on about unrelated points? I don’t care if the user-facing name is different from the binary name. I have no position on the topic.
I corrected a wrong statement (who is responsible for the .desktop
file of an application). You tried to counter-correct me, but did so on an unrelated point (who displays the application name? I’m still not sure). Positions on whether .desktop
files defining separate names is good aren’t relevant.
Your Mint/Xed example doesn’t show what you think it does. Mint doesn’t just ship with .desktop
entries for a bunch of applications, they are still managed by the respective developers and part of the packages themselves. Mint is also the developer of Xed, so the repository is in their organization, but the .desktop
file is still part of the package. If you install Xed on any other distribution, you’ll still get the same .desktop
entry, because it’s part of the package.
That is all I’ve been talking about. I’m not sure how your reply relates to that, but it would help me if you tell me what you’re arguing against.
No, your Desktop Environment doesn’t have a huge list of package names to app names. It has a list for all your installed packages, but the list entries are part of the packages.
If your system doesn’t have gnome-system-monitor
installed, you won’t have the corresponding .desktop
file, because it’s part of the package. It would be incredibly wasteful and unnecessarily complex for your system to get shipped out with .desktop
files for all possible applications.
Thanks! Sorry for coming on so aggressively.
Do you think DEs just have a huge list of package names to app names, or how do you imagine this would work?
In reality, it’s of course fully on Gnome, as it’s part of their code. Nobody except for Gnome has anything to do with the name that’s being shown.
No. Security through obscurity is bad security, but it’s still an additional layer. And since there’s literally no way to 100% ensure that a machine is being controlled by a human, there’s literally no other way except saying “fuck it” and not doing any security at all.
It’s not. PHP used to use the function length as hash buckets, so by having evenly distributed lengths the execution time was faster. No idea where GP came up with that.
I love it. Finally, I remember what these pictures felt like before I knew they were bullshit. It’s a certain mysticism that was missing.
No, it can’t copy infinite bits, because it has to store the current address somewhere. If they implement unbounded integers for this, they are still limited by your RAM, as that number can’t infinitely grow without infinite memory.
I’ve heard this one. It was the wife’s heart!
I didn’t say whether sports are a hack to our emotions or not, but it sure as shit isn’t made to make you aggressive.