The enlightened, then, know that the only purpose of ANY desktop environment is to start the correct program when I hit "super" and then type the first 3-4 characters of a program name. And to do that left/right screen split thing when you hit super+left/right.
I can't figure out how my workflow is that different from other linux users or if I'm just part of the silent majority. Literally all I ask of my DE is:
- the super+search thing i mentioned above
- run the following programs fullscreen: terminator, intellij, pycharm, vscodium, firefox
And... that's just it. Oh wait, one more thing:
- make video, wifi, audio, multiple monitors etc just work
It's in service of that last one that I've been pretty happy with Gnome 3 the whole time it's been out. None of their shuffles or excisions have interrupted my workflow, so I don't mind it at all.
I agree with the point you're making, however for some reason on Linux, desktop environments usually are far more extensive than that.
KDE, GNOME, etc. usually don't only consist of an app launcher, but a file browser, text editor, archive manager, browser, image viewer and who knows what else.
I never understood this tribalism, doesn't the spirit of open source mean that I'm free to choose the tools of my liking, may the best tool win, etc.?
This certainly the case on Windows, where people usually just replace tools to their liking.
Most distros usually strongly push the desktop environment's native apps for every niche.
When I have multiple screens I run 95% of my applications in fullscreen mode. There is not much heavy lifting that a DE needs to do. Occasionally I use split windows.
Honestly, I think the latest version of gnome-screenshot that has been directly integrated into the DE is amazing.
I was also laid off earlier last month. Comments like yours would scare me.
So I hope I don't come across as rude or anything, but I want to provide a counter-anecdote.
I was laid off in very early November. I took about 2 weeks just to get over about 80% of my saltiness at what I considered to be a betrayal. (I won't go into detail, forgive me, I'm still not able to talk about it without being salty yet.)
I then asked my two best tech friends (1 from college, 1 from my first job) for referrals to the companies they worked at. I did 2 interview loops, got 2 offers, and picked one. I got a ~10k raise over my last position in the process, though mostly out of region arbitrage (last job was geo-adjusting me down ~10% whereas my new job was not, but it's a smaller company and an earlier stage company, so less cash to sling around, but more equity).
(for the record, I have 9 years of experience and the position is "senior software engineer" which was the same as the job I got laid off from).
So - to all you fellow laid off peoples - don't rely on anecdotes from strangers on the internet. I wouldn't have ever made this post as a top-level post, but I hope my 2c calms folks a bit.
(And for the record... I was intending/expecting to apply to more than 2 companies, but I was a bit sick of applying to companies where I didn't have an inside opinion on the culture bc I felt like I got burned by tha tlast time, so I gave these 2 companies (where I did have that inside opinion) the benefit of being the only 2 companies in my first salvo of interviewing, so I could give them extra attention. And I happened to get an offer I really liked at a company I feel good about, so I took it, even if I guess I probably could've optimized a few more k of base pay if I'd grabbed more/bigger companies in my first round.)
This is called networking. You have a decade of experience and some good connections. The longer you go in any career, the higher paid you are, and the more important networking is. Don't burn bridges!
The best solution for my own self and family is to be part of a system where we all agree to take basic precautions to safeguard the more vulnerable who cannot.
If everyone who can get vaccinated does, then it fundamentally changes how dangerous the world is for those who are immunocompromised, or are too young to receive the vaccine.
I wish that the number of people too selfish or foolish to receive the vaccine was small enough that we could protect them with herd immunity as well, but given the area around me seems to be stalling out at about 70% vaccinated, it is clear that we cannot.
Being anti-vaccination or anti-medicine seems particularly foolish to me. Has anything else we've ever done in all of history come close to the positive humanitarian impact that the development of vaccines has? Aside, perhaps, from the development of antibiotics or sanitation or irrigation?
Being able to vaccinate ourselves has to be one of the major legs up we've developed as a species in general. And people are choosing to discard it. I find it deeply frustrating.
> Has anything else we've ever done in all of history come close to the positive humanitarian impact that the development of vaccines has? Aside, perhaps, from the development of antibiotics or sanitation or irrigation?
> Being able to vaccinate ourselves has to be one of the major legs up we've developed as a species in general. And people are choosing to discard it. I find it deeply frustrating.
I think along similar lines and I share your frustration.
Other creatures advantage themselves through brute strength, or flight, or some other physical characteristics. But Man is special: Man's advantage is his brain. Our unique ability to think; to reason; to read, write, and remember; to explore the rules of the universe gives us the prerogative to understand and alter our environment.
All of those achievements you mention are expressions of Man's ability to apply his intellect to alter his condition in his environment. Here, with these vaccines, we have a nearly pure example of the fundamental advantage we humans have against a new unthinking, uncaring, endemic adversary of all humanity.
We have done the hard work. We have used our advantage, endowed by our Creator, to build the weapons that will defeat this new enemy. Now our biggest obstacle to final victory is not the virus itself--it's other humans.
It is not anti-vaccination or anti-medicine to say that it's not someone's business to verify anything. People can go about their own business in the form of a vaccination, a mask, staying at home, or all three until the pandemic is over. It's not someone else's business. That's just how it is in the States, sorry but not sorry. You know that Florida has been back to normal for a long time and covid cases have been consistently declining there? And other states too. Without any such expectations around nosey moral busybodies trying to get people's personal information for "verification"
If Florida was its own country they would all be dead by now. Given that we know they falsified their numbers how can we draw any conclusions from them?
What an illogical thing to say. Florida is its own state - are they all dead? No. And I have no good reason to suspect that Florida or Texas or etc are actually fudging their numbers to hide a negative trend. Too conspiratorial for me to just believe that.
My wife and I got a 5 month old border collie about 3 months ago. The approach that ended up working for us was to use positive reinforcement for almost all the things we wanted trained, and then only use negative reinforcement for one or two things we really didn't want him to do.
We chose to punish (spank/"bad dog"/shake an empty soda can with pennies inside it) for only two things: pottying in the house, and chasing/herding the cats.
We think they were good choices for the negative reinforcement because they were things we really wanted to stop ASAP, and they happened relatively infrequently, so it's not like he was being constantly punished.
At 8 months old, he's now an ideal citizen of our house.
I do think the breed had a lot to do with the success of this technique, though. Border Collies are smart (I'm told they have the intelligence of a 4 y/o?), so I think him being able to quickly learn things, and him being able to connect things beyond just one step was important.
By "connecting things beyond one step", I mean, I suspect with a less-intelligent dog you might have the problem of like, if they potty outside and then you wait to give them a treat until you're inside (because the dog is distracted by them if you have them outside) they might not get that the treat is for pottying.
> We chose to punish (spank/"bad dog"/shake an empty soda can with pennies inside it) for only two things: pottying in the house, and chasing/herding the cats.
No need to hit your dog to accomplish this. Also during your training, unless you caught the dog in the act of potty in the house he might not even be able to connect the dots between potty and punishment given the time between the 2 acts and from his mind you might be arbitrarily spanking him.
If the dog pottys in the house the only one at fault is the human (assuming its not medical related) for not letting him out enough.
How can you be sure than your hitting was the the reason the dog stopping going inside and not his development of routine for "this is where I go potty" and the puppy's natural ability to develop their bladder to hold it longer?
We rescue huskies (no longer puppies). God love em, but they are not known for their intelligence or trainability. We are just proactive when house training, know that accidents happen, reflect on why they happened ("oops ya.. I did forget about them" or "OK I guess we arent ready to leave them alone for x hours yet"), and keep at the routine.
RE your "less intelligent" comment I agree. We kept them on leashes until they did their business and then rewarded on the spot. Afterwards they were let loose to run wild in the yard or go back inside.
I don't think anyone involved in writing, or anyone mentioned in this article has any idea what 4chan actually represents, with the exception of Nisimura and Shkreli.
I think it's really dishonest to represent 4chan as "ground zero for orchestrated harassment" and "[a site where] some of its users created a set of code words to help users make racist and bigoted slurs".
It's like saying Earth is a place where people have their organs stolen and sold and where babies die. It is technically correct, of course, but it's very disingenuous to describe it that way to outsiders.
I would go on and talk about what I think 4chan really stands for, but I assume most people on HN are pretty familiar with the site, so just know that I am in the camp that likes how it is (or used to be?) a last bastion of freedom and anonymity (not Tor-like, but where the UX is designed to not have profiles and usernames) and free discourse on the internet.
The main thing I want to mention is that having money problems is absolutely nothing new to 4chan. Moot's comments have traditionally been along the lines of "4chan will always consume all available bandwidth". The nature of the site limits it to either leery advertisers, or people like JList (where 4channers are almost exactly their target audience). So advertising has always been hard for 4chan.
Personally, I think the 4chan pass is the key way to move forward for 4chan, or solicit donations more openly (perhaps a progress bar that shows % of monthly fees that have been paid?).
Funding 4chan is definitely a hard problem, but it has existed for more than a decade, and has been mostly well-handled for that entire period. Time will tell, though.
> a last bastion of freedom and anonymity (not Tor-like, but where the UX is designed to not have profiles and usernames) and free discourse on the internet.
I don't think I've heard of anything from 4chan that wasn't being done on Usenet 20 years ago.
Usenet still exists. It's fast, simple to use, costs from cheap to free, has at least one infamously Libertarian/troll friendly provider, posts can be utterly anonymous via remailers, and it could handle in its sleep the volume of traffic, text posts and binary files 4chan gets.
If people on 4chan prefer to keep the site on the web - which is historically a terrible place for free/offensive speech, since the main feature web forums provided over Usenet was their moderation capability and control by a single entity/individual/opinion - they could pay for it.
If its own users don't care enough about it to keep it going, there's no reason for it to exist at all.
>I would go on and talk about what I think 4chan really stands for, but I assume most people on HN are pretty familiar with the site, so just know that I am in the camp that likes how it is (or used to be?) a last bastion of freedom and anonymity (not Tor-like, but where the UX is designed to not have profiles and usernames) and free discourse on the internet.
Well, noisy discourse, shitposting, and doubles threads. Actually, not really discourse at all. Mostly just heresy.
Yeah, but have you considered that there's a developmental benefit to having somewhere you can go and just say "vile" things?
I know having that kind of space online as I was coming-of-age was huge for me, it gave me somewhere to experiment with opinions without consequences. Somewhere to say truly, truly disgusting things. And I did, a lot. But over time, it became clear where I was just being offensive and experimenting with "naughty" ideas, where I was trolling, and where I genuinely disagreed with the norm.
That free experimentation with opinions and language is a lot harder to find these days, but it really shaped and honed my ability to even form arguments, my ability to explain my position to people who don't agree with me, and my ability to listen to positions I find offensive.
Not all discourse needs be Discourse, full of profundity and consequence; experimentation, freedom, and privacy are core to the human developmental and creative processes.
The problem is that some people never got the memo that says that chanspeak is not acceptable in polite conversation. So the chans end up being a continual generator of sexist, racist assholes who think that it's OK to be sexist, racist assholes. Lots (but not all) gamergaters fall into this basket of deplorables.
Which is not to say that your comment is not valid. Society needs a release valve where people can feel free to vent their creativity along with the darkness in their souls. Imageboards are really great for that, as the ephemeral anonymous nature lets the good ideas survive and the bad ideas fade forever into the aether. Without the fear of consequences or prejudice, the human spirit is unbound to create stuff. Naturally, 90% of everything created is crap.
It's just a terrible place to learn socialization. And a few too many do that.
> The problem is that some people never got the memo that says that chanspeak is not acceptable in polite conversation. So the chans end up being a continual generator of sexist, racist assholes who think that it's OK to be sexist, racist assholes. Lots (but not all) gamergaters fall into this basket of deplorables.
What you revile here with such colorful language is nothing but many developmentally delayed people you likely bully in real life (and certainly, if not you, others do) for not learning social graces and conforming to society at the rate you do forming a community and insisting that they be treated with rather than oppressed by society at large, or they'll tear the place down.
You don't like it, because you were on the oppressing side, and oppressing them is easier than dealing with their very real underlying issues and trying to meaningfully integrate them in to society.
So your suggestion is to eliminate a community that plays a healthy role for normally developing people and a meeting ground for them, presumably in hopes that they'll go back to quietly being oppressed.
> It's just a terrible place to learn socialization. And a few too many do that.
Frankly, I doubt you offered them a better alternative.
Good lord dude, I don't know how you got from me stating a problem to me being a bully, an oppressor, and an attacker of the disabled. I also said that imageboards play an important social role, which is a long, long way from saying I want them eliminated.
I have offered an alternative wiki farm, and specifically a wiki about tropes in media. The last time we had to deal with a developmentally disabled person on there, we ended up calling his parents to ask for help. You know, so we could treat him like a real human being and not just a ban evader.
I quoted the part of your comment that exemplifies the behavior I was calling out.
Perhaps I read it wrong: feel free to provide another interpretation of the quoted text. I'd genuinely like to be wrong here, but it reads like you're engaged in culturally approved oppression of the invisibly disabled.
Ed: In particular, you identify a group of developmentally stalled people who didnt receive the help they needed to be properly socialized, and then immediately call them "deplorables" because they acted out.
I think that says it all: these are people you willingly other instead of embrace because they offend your cultured sebsibilities, and the culture you're in tells you to revile rather than help. That's the definition of culturally sanctioned oppression.
I'm not sure why you'd flag my reply for disagreeing with you sharply. I don't think I've done anything inappropriate, as opposed to discussing a sensitive topic and not agreeing with you. (The reason you can't is precisely that: because you'd flag appropriately expressed views that disagree with you in ways that make you feel uncomfortable.)
> openly racist and sexist people are deplorable
I mean, I obviously disagree. I think it matters a lot why they're doing those things, as opposed to that they're doing them. If it's because they're mentally disabled and we've failed to teach them socially appropriate behaviors as they matured, how is that their failing rather than ours?
Your lack of concern for that possibility -- that we're just discarding the disabled because they didn't develop under their own power in to normal adults -- is what troubles me about your stance.
No, I would flag you because of the personal attacks, which are a violation of board rules. I don't really care about your views now, because you're obviously a lost cause.
I've claimed that I think you're acting a certain way, but that's not a personal attack: it's a specific claim about how you're acting (and how it impacts others) based on specific and cited things you've said. Calling you out for your behavior isn't "attacking" you, even if it's uncomfortable for you or violates your social expectations.
> I don't really care about your views now, because you're obviously a lost cause.
Yes, I suspected that you would refuse to engage with someone who disagreed with your view and called you out on your behavior, because it would force you to confront the reality of how your actions impact people rather than the social fable you tell yourself about them. Notice how you call me a "lost cause", but clearly never even talked to me in this exchange. You just said the socially approved phrases at me. I think the reason you haven't actually addressed my specific points is because at some level, you know you can't. That what you're doing really is oppression targeted at a disabled group you've been socialized to find "deplorable" rather than "unfortunate".
It's just much easier to deny your bad behavior and fit in.
Im sure you'll tell yourself you chose not to respond but could have.
But I sincerely hope you'll at least try for your own benefit. I think having to explain why poorly raised mentally disabled people saying racist things are deplorable rather than unfortunate, without merely assuming your conclusion is right would teach you a lot about yourself. You don't even have to show me: just spend 5 minutes typing it out for yourself. Why not be sure you're right instead of merely assuming Im wrong?
Not sure why I'd have to do so. I've never made any comment that referred to mentally disabled people. Unless you equate sexism to a mental disability? If that's so, like wow.
> Yeah, but have you considered that there's a developmental benefit to having somewhere you can go and just say "vile" things?
Well yes, but the question is, do you value that developmental benefit enough to pay for it? The real problem here isn't "freedom", it's business: how can 4chan pay for itself?
Yes, I know. I just also don't really have any illusions that the "4chanish" population have any right to a subsidized forum for, well, being 4chanish. Deep down, it's a business run for profit by a private individual, not a piece of public property maintained with tax money.
I had a Pass for a year, mostly because I needed one to post via VPN on my phone. What really killed that for me was anytime my phone decided to shuffle IPs I had to go and re-enter it, often after a cooldown of like 15 minutes.
Also their system is buggy, and half the time it would tell me I was banned for one reason or another even though using the Pass is supposed to bypass that and it was some other person being banned on that IP and nothing I had done.
Basically, the benefits I had paid for were spotty in their effectiveness, so I didn't bother renewing.
Also I stopped posting as much because /pol/ started ruining every board.
I came 2003 for /b/ which is practically 9gag with older people and stayed for /fit/, which is pretty nice and I have the feeling the boards don't overlap that much in terms of users.
I can't figure out how my workflow is that different from other linux users or if I'm just part of the silent majority. Literally all I ask of my DE is:
- the super+search thing i mentioned above - run the following programs fullscreen: terminator, intellij, pycharm, vscodium, firefox
And... that's just it. Oh wait, one more thing:
- make video, wifi, audio, multiple monitors etc just work
It's in service of that last one that I've been pretty happy with Gnome 3 the whole time it's been out. None of their shuffles or excisions have interrupted my workflow, so I don't mind it at all.