Tranus

Well you're right that it's not practical now. By "soon" I was thinking of like 10+ years from now. And as I said, it would likely start in systems that aren't used for those applications anyway (aside from web browsers, which use way more ram than necessary anyway). By the time it takes over the applications you listed, we'll have caches as big as our current ram anyway. And I'm using a loose definition of cache, I really just mean on-package memory of some kind. And we probably will see that GPU style memory before it's fully integrated.

I wouldn't be surprised if we end up with ram-less systems soon. A lot of programs don't need much more memory than the cache sizes already available. Things like electron bloat memory use through the roof, but even then it's likely just a gigabyte or two. Cpus will have that much cache eventually. The few applications that really need tons of memory could be offloaded to a really fast SSD, which are already becoming the standard. I imagine we'll see it in phones or tablets first, where multitasking isn't as much of a thing and physical space is at a premium.

My understanding is that running on game consoles can't be officially supported, because they can't integrate the necessary proprietary code into the engine while keeping it open source.

Well it's all fine and dandy until you try to buy some spinach, fumble around on the touchscreen for a while until you figure out how to add something manually, then can't find spinach anywhere and finally ask for help, feeling like a total idiot who can't use a touchscreen interface that a boomer soccer mom could figure out, but then you figure out it was listed under "leafy green spinach" so now you're mad at both at yourself and whoever decided that was a good idea.

I'm finding it very difficult to phrase this comment. I want to share my thoughts, but I know that if I am perceived as a bigot, everything I say will be seen as something to be defeated rather than understood. But tiptoeing around the subject doesn't convey my meaning any better. So please, give me the benefit of the doubt long enough to hear me out.

I think what nexus is doing here is inappropriate. Mods, by their very existence, give players choice. Even this one: it means players can now choose he or she or to not be asked at all. Nexus, by removing this mod, is exerting what influence they have to eliminate that choice.

Nexus has considerable influence. For many games, particularly Bethesda games, they are seen as the default and complete source of mods. When looking for new mods to install, most people wouldn't bother checking other sites since everything is on nexus. If players aren't aware a mod exists, in other words they are unaware an option exists, that hinders them from making that choice. Also, their vortex mod manager makes installing mods from nexus super simple. By removing the mod from their site, they are making installing the mod at least a little bit more difficult.

I have seen multiple people posit here that removing the mod is fine because it does something so silly and pointless that no one should care about it. But we all care about silly, pointless things from time to time. I have spent days comparing all of the ways of getting unified GTK and QT themes on my desktop to try and get them just right. That was entirely pointless. But I wanted it that way, so I made it that way. I don't have to justify it to anyone, and neither do the users of this mod. Installing the mod will only affect their game, no one else even has to know about it. Nexus' decision does effect other people. They do have to justify themselves. Removing the mod is telling people they must select a pronoun. If it is really so pointless, nexus shouldn't have bothered removing the mod.

People also claim that the political implications made by the mod are dangerous, and must be suppressed. I know you'll roll your eyes at me, but yes: I'm making the free speech argument. It really is important though. If we, as a society and as individuals, accept suppressing speech for it's ideological contents, then we are begging the question: which ideas are ok, and which aren't? The ability to control public discourse is powerful, and highly coveted by anyone who wants to bend society to their will. It has been done before, and we know how horrible the consequences can be. It is incredibly dangerous. Answering that question at all is only justifiable in the face of a comparable danger. Is the idea of not being asked one's pronouns really a comparable danger? Nexus seems to think so.

Of course, free speech also protects Nexus' right to control what they put on their platform. I am not saying they shouldn't have that right. But nexus is a platform, not a person. They position their site not as a place for them to share their own content, but for others to share theirs. Any modification to the contents of their site is a modification to other people's speech, not just Nexus's. They ought to use their capability in this regard responsibly and sparingly. Their actions here are neither.

I thought that others here on Lemmy believed in the same principles I do. That people should have total control over their own software and activities with it. That neither corporations nor governments should take any action to unduly control what they do with their own property. The belief in FOSS and decentralization seemed to go hand in hand with that. But if something like this can make you all turn on those principles, then maybe the resemblance wasn't even skin deep.

You are right in terms of in-development and future games. But unity is also trying to enforce these terms on already released games. This could potentially bring a challenge to their subscription model, which essentially states you must continue to pay as long as your game is available. I don't know much about the law, but I do know that there are legal limitations on how rented/subscribed products work. These limitations are to prevent straight up scams from stealing from you and making it technically legal with some fine print. Which isn't too far off from what unity is doing now.

This is comparable to you renting a drill from someone to make a table. You agree to the terms that you must continue to pay a subscription as long as the table exists. Then unity drill co. decides you must also pay a fee every time someone sits at the table. Even though the table is already made, and you already had an agreement to pay for the drill you had previously used. Your only alternative is to destroy the table.

Just because the terms said they could modify the deal doesn't mean they can force anything on you as if you had already agreed to it.

You're absolutely right about VR. But I don't think AR is ever going to be that big. There just isn't as much of a point in mixing the real world with artificial elements. The only reason to do so is to get information that can't be emulated as well for VR. As VR gets better, AR gets more redundant. AR of the style we see on phones (like pokemon go) is even more pointless. AR will stick around for virtual desktops and smart glasses and the like, but for gaming it will always be a gimmick.

What if you attached two one-way pigeons together to make a two-way pidgeon? It would probably take a piece of string, and a coconut...

I didn't feel like it was that much when I used windows either. But then I started dual booting linux, and I realized just how much I had been ignoring. I had just gotten used to closing every notification without reading it. It's kind of cursed knowledge thing. It only takes like <10s a day, but once I noticed it it really bothered me.

But the term was created to legitimize the material.

Do you have a source for that? I can't find anything that states the origin of the term itself is seedy. Besides, it's just a plain description: it's pornography with children in it.

The only sources I can find that support CSAM over CP claim that CP somehow implies consent. But I'm saying that simply isn't the case. I am not saying that words arent powerful. I am not saying that no words ever need to be changed. I am saying that these words don't need to be changed.

Based on those same sources, I'd speculate that this outrage is just misplaced anger. They almost immediately start talking about how bad sexual abuse is, which is not really relevant to whether it should be called CP or CSAM. Just because CP is bad, does not mean the term CP is bad.

That is needlessly pedantic. I have never heard of anyone using the word pornography to imply legality or moral acceptability. There is no such thing as "legitimate" CP, so there is no need to specify that it's not ok every time it is mentioned. No one in their right mind would presume he's some kind of CP supporting monster for failing to do so.

What? Nautilus (ubuntu default file browser) finds drives wherever they are mounted and lists as their own location, as if it was windows. That includes the default mount point. Even if it wasn't detected, it can still get to the mount point by browsing through the file system normally.

Installing software can be done via a software manager (included in ubuntu and most other distros). Software not in the manager is usually distributed as a portable binary (also common on windows) or an app image (even easier to use than an installer). Once installed, that software is the same as on windows.

Besides basic file manipulation, installing/running software, and web browsing, what else does the average user even do? All of it can be done on linux, with or without CLI.