Oh totally. I just wish Linux had better user experience than it does, cause right now it’s kind of subpar.

I’ve tried on Ubuntu, what’s more popular than that.

Windows is certainly not bug free and I’m very much a fan of the idea of FOSS - the execution is unfortunately lacking in this aspect.

If you disable… needs to be configured… just have to install the packages

And this is exactly the problem. I suppose there might be a way to fix it, but if Windows can just make it work for me, why can’t Linux do the same? All this “Oh you just need to do X and Y” should be unnecessary bullshit.

Also, it’s not that it doesn’t work at all on Linux, but it works sporadically. For instance, when the system goes to sleep and needs to wake up, the screens sometimes turn on, sometimes they don’t and I need to pull the plug and reconnect. This is never necessary on Windows.

I’m having it on my Framework laptop - I really was hopeful that it would just work with that :(

… Unless of course you’re trying to connect two external monitors through a docking station with a USB-C into the laptop with a closed lid and disabled inbuilt screen.

Unfortunately, in my experience, Linux routinely fails at this task (tried many different distros) while Windows “just works”.

This film gets cooler and cooler the more I hear about it! Really gotta watch it.

no global admins, and no way shut down communities-meaning true censorship resistance.

“True censorship resistance” is not a desirable property. No normal user wants to deal with moderation. You need to have a structure for delegating moderation and such tasks to other people.

Not sure about that one but the following one:

In each language, the words for yes and no never change, regardless of which question they are answering.

This happens in Danish actually. Example:

Kan du lide is? (Do you like ice cream?)
Ja
Kan du ikke lide is? (Do you not like ice cream?)
Jo

So in Danish we have “ja” which means “yes” but “jo” is used instead when answering a negative question, so as to confirm what the negative question asked. This is kind of annoying in English cause if you ask “Do you not like ice cream?” then if you say “yes” does that mean “yes I like ice cream” or does it mean “yes I do not like ice cream”? That’s what “jo” disambiguates.

Tbf the flat buttonless style makes them really easy to clean.

Very well laid out. Biggest problem is that the people watching his channel are probably likely to already understand the problem. Certainly almost everyone here understands the problem. Preaching to the choir and all that.

Hopefully we can get more people to see it as an issue in the future.

m8 literally everyone on the fediverse is an outlier 😅

Am I the only one that feels it’s a bit strange to have such safeguards in an AI model? I know most models aren’t available online but some models are available to download and run locally right? So what prevents me from just doing that if I wanted to get around the safeguards? I guess maybe they’re just doing it so that they can’t be somehow held legally responsible for anything the AI model might say?

Source? Or is it just your impression?

Just be sure to find another job before quitting. Always easier to find a job when you already have one.

I honestly think they’d understand it about as much as they’d currently understand it - that is, not understanding it very much at all. So I think it would be about the same level of understanding but it would make a lot more sense and would be easier to calculate with.

It’d also remove a lot of incentives for squeezing your income/pension contribution to align with certain thresholds (i.e. tax bracket thresholds).

For example, a sigmoid function (click link for equation). You’d need to mess with the constants to align the function with a range of incomes but the general shape will be the same - a low, almost-zero taxation rate for those who earn the least, rising to a threshold (perhaps even 100%, but a lower value like 75% would probably work as well), giving a high taxation to those who earn the most.

I’m not speaking against progressive taxation, I’m saying the brackets should be continuous so there aren’t any sharp turns in taxation. Right now the brackets make the taxation discrete, but I feel it should be continuous.

A continuous bracket could be defined by a single equation. You’d plug in your income and you’d get out your taxation. No need to look up what bracket you are in.

Why? To me it’d be much more intuitive. I find brackets quite confusing

Never understood the idea of tax brackets. Why isn’t it just continuous? Computers are calculating the tax now anyway, not like it would be infeasible.