I had to edit windows registry to fix the worst misfeatures of start & context menu. I never found solution to random wake up after suspend or missing icons after wake up - MS support was useless. Linux desktop even with non-zero amount of issues can't frustrate me nearly as much as Windows. All games I ran so far on Linux worked as good or better as/than on Windows. I keep Windows installed just in case some game really won't work, but combination of SteamDeck (Proton) and Vulkan did wonders for Linux compatibility kudos to Steam/Valve. And I would not want to do software development on Windows, that is number one reason I am using Linux (not that I am using Unreal Engine). Recent MS fever dream with LLMs only adds to general frustration with Windows.
Stopping greatly reduced issues with my stiff neck and I also noticed that my hands are not nearly as cold as before. I drink black tea time to time, but it is nowhere near as addictive as coffee so I have no trouble with moderation.
I started using Proton recently and it is quite impressive. Some games have native support, some use Vulkan, others want to run on SteamDeck. I haven't booted Win 11 in more than a month. Not having to dual boot any time I want to switch work/fun is great - even if reboot doesn't take that long these days. I tend to play older, single player games, not everything is perfect, but I like it much more than being frustrated by Windows - using Fedora btw.
CVE-2024-3094 is it? You can argue that in C it is much easier to obfuscate your exploit. Implementing something in C is also a lot more work, so you might be also inclined to use 3rd party library.
That depends on your definition. Programming languages often deviate from mathematics when it comes to definition of variables, functions etc. That is by choice, Haskell tried to be as close to mathematical definition as possible.
You don’t need to make a mathematical argument, “variable” and “constant” have clear meanings in colloquial use which match the definitions of your parent comment.
While you might argue which drug is dangerous and which isn't, ban on drugs is not arbitrary decision. You can't do whatever you want with your body, because you might loose control and hurt others. Drug abuse affects others as well (financially, mentally, physically...). I am victim of someone's drug abuse. I never took any drugs. So if you are looking for victims of drug abuse, here I am.
Some of the decisions were rather arbitrary at best, and racist at worst, though. The sentence disparities regarding, for example, cocaine depending on how you are using it was designed to punish black people more harshly. Opium bans had as much to do with anti-Chinese sentiment than anything.
I'm not arguing that drugs should be legal, but we do have to be clear that the reasons for banning them and the punishment are not necessarily rational.
That’s pure historical revision. The sentencing difference was created in 1986 based on the belief that it was more addictive. It wasn’t until a decade later that research showed the causation had been reversed (more addicted people were more likely to use crack). If you look at the timing, there was a huge increase in drug crime that occurred as a result of the crack epidemic: https://www.nber.org/digest/oct18/lingering-lethal-toll-amer....
The recent change in policy simply reflects the prevailing trend of reducing disparities in sentencing for criminals while increasing disparities in crime victimization by failing to enforce the law.
It is legal if you're in good shape and therefore the risk of that happening is minimal. It is illegal to drive a car under an altered state that makes it more likely to happen. It is a balance between the benefits of permitting something and the likelihood of something bad happens. In normal conditions, the benefits are believed to outweigh the risks, so it is generally permitted to drive a car. But it is not permitted to drive it if you're under the effect of some substance that can alter your perception of reality.
Alcohol is in fact heavily regulated and controlled in most countries, and we have cultural practices in place that largely manage the risks for the vast majority of people that consume it.
Personally I'm in favour of further narcotics legalisation, but with regulation to manage it's social effects and taxation to fund the expensive mitigation measures it would require.
I thought so too, but for a while I had 2 144Hz monitors on my Mac Pro[1] and very much noticed it in the UI, window dragging was smoother, browser scrolling too, absolutely noticeable.
[1] Then Apple released the Pro Display and Big Sur and people wondered "how does the math work for a 6K display and bandwidth?" The answer, they completely fucking broke DP 1.4. Hundreds of complaints, different monitors, different GPUs, all broke by Big Sur to this day just so Apple could make their 6K display work.
My screens could do 4K HDR10 @ 144 Hz. After Big Sur? SDR @ 95 Hz, HDR @ 60Hz. Ironically I got better results telling my monitors to only advertise DP 1.2 support, then it was SDR@120, HDR@95Hz.
Studiously ignored by Apple because they broke the standard to eke out more bandwidth.
reply