Atheopagan Gab

Trump discusses first 100 days of historic presidency in exclusive ABC interview President Trump issued a full-throated defense of his first 100 days in office during an exclusive interview Tuesday with ABC News.

abcnews.go.com/US/trump-def...

i thought this was a decent anti-Trump meme but it's actually real lmfao

the game design orthodoxy is truly an abhorrent creature. almost everybody is obsessed with minimizing player friction, designing around the worst playtester experience, and simplifying all encounters and undermining their artistic vision in order to """respect your time"""

should be emphasized in terms of its intrinsic value. Linux is not an automatic experience designed for you by some overpaid visionary, it's a modular one.

even the ways you can build your own character, or improve your own life, in correspondence to how much work you put into customizing the most arcane aspects of your installation (like making a driver-level modification or compiling a custom kernel)

you should be selling the daring and bold alternative. the ethics, ideology, and politics of it should be front and centre. the emphasis on a kind of work ethic and implicit ways in which Linux makes you better at learning new information should be centred.

i've seen people have anti-Linux conversion stories just because they were using Ubuntu and, obviously, MacOS is better at delivering an Ubuntu-like experience than Ubuntu is. but you shouldn't be selling Ubuntu-like experiences.

snap and systemd services, which slows down the users boot times, and they are left wondering why their systems are so slow. it's because these distros are replicating all the errors of proprietary slopware, just with less resources to fix them.

i haven't even installed Windows in many years and won't do a dual boot test to confirm, but i wouldn't be surprise if the average Ubuntu + GNOME3 install uses even more memory than default Windows 11. not to mention that distributions like Ubuntu install a billion

this is not Windows plus Linux cred. this is a new system with high initial fixed costs that then return those costs in terms of improved performance and workflow in most cases. lastly, noob distros are not just bad for their unreliability, but their atrocious performance.

there are necessarily going to be unexpected conflicts. this incentives distros like Fedora to turn telemetry on by default just to predict and preempt such problems. yet the problem is in lying to people about what Linux is: a new and different experience.

however, these prepackaged yet undertested beasts of burden — keep in mind that the state causes this problem by making intellectual property possible per the above — will inevitably break more often than a system built from a minimal install.

except new novel problems natural to a heterogeneous software ecosystem as well, and then tell people it's an easy switch. this can happen if a person has the right use-cases and system specs such that the switch to the noob-friendly distro is indeed frictionless.

viable alternatives to their competitors, and often transcend them, actually incredible. however, you shouldn't package together something that superfically looks like Windows before they made the folder icons ugly, and has almost all the same problems as Windows,

proprietary software, means that you are rarely going to compete in terms of some cutting-edge neo-AI feature or whatever. which makes the fact that many open software applications hobbled together by either pure voluntary work or shoestring budgets are actually

user freedom enough that you can, say, change what handles your mouse and keyboard input to a slightly different package. this, added with the state-caused problem that is intellectual property creating incentives for most capital investment and manhours to flow into

Linux distributions should not be aiming for entirely mainstream appeal, and they should learn the value of niche marketing. here is the essential problem with 'noob-friendly' distros that install a billion packages for you: they have to manage a heterogeneous space that respects

lastly, some games are designed in such a way that cheating barely matters. for example, you can have an aimbot and a wallhack and still be radically outmatched by a Quake veteran who pseudo-telepathically knows where you will go before you do and have total map control.

even if users get banned or some iteration of their anti-cheat programme gets squashed after the money-making time period. it's still a booming industry, in essence, and one has to wonder: is encountering the occasional cheater even that bad of an experience? lmao.

what the current system does, in actual fact, is hegemonize anti-cheating solutions enough such that those with a financial incentive to sell cheat programs that lost long enough to make a profit, will continue to operate as they do,

like matchmaking to another game instance in the former case (punishments for quitting are almost always trivial) and, in the latter case, ways to make cheating idiosyncratically different if you're running some heterodox server-side and client interaction. as a result,

that's because having absolutely zero 'cheaters' in any system is logistically impossible. moreover, if the player base is either broad enough, or if it is small enough to have dedicated obsessives that care about minutia, there are user-end solutions available:

(e.g. triggering automatic bans when you already know that someone being at a particular location, for example, is mechanically impossible.) have titles like Apex Legends become cheater-free paradises after dropping Linux support and retooling their anti-cheat systems? nope.

if anything, the best solution is for a minimum threshold of the community to understand how the game works, which requires it being open sourced, and leads to local solutions to automate and semi-automate anti-cheat.

times in a harassment campaign. but then you have a bigger and categorically different problem on your hands than mere cheating. the fact that there is no ethical way to have robust anti-cheat on Linux reflects poorly on how people think about anti-cheat systems.

and, of course, user-driven servers with spectator features and the ability to vote ban, and for hosting admins to ban users, reliably solve the problem. the worst case scenario is getting someone so pathologically obsessed with the community that they bypass the ban a billion

i'm not at all convinced that strong rather than moderate/weak automatic anti-cheat is necessary for multiplayer games to be generally playable. nor for e-sports to have integrity. (after all, post-hoc revocation of rewards is a solid incentive structure.)

bearing that burden silently, and well into already being universally hated as 'kingslayer' and 'oathbreaker'. it adds to the ultimate heroism of the act. and it makes Ned Stark's presumptive judgement of him all the more tragic and morally sickening.

Jaime's confession is one of those few instances where GoT does a scene better than the ASOIAF book counterpart, but one detail it critically lacks is the fact that Jaime doesn't just stop the Mad King in one swift act. he spends three days hunting down all the pyromancers,

essentially regulating when neurons fire and slow down, but that doesn't make it a bad idea. the question, then, is what is the healthiest taper plan?