KDE has very basic FancyZone inspired functionality that is very sub par (doesn’t let you have different layouts on different virtual desktops for example). There’s a KDE addon (I think) called Polonium that is a bit more capable I think but I haven’t tried it. Other than that there’s the desktop environment COSMIC that’s in the works that’s supposed to be a very tile/zone friendly regular desktop environment.
Oh hell no. Gnome ain’t getting anywhere near my laptops ever again. I almost threw the last one out a window in a fit of Gnome induced rage.
Yeah, programmers who use LLMs to code sure aren’t cooks.
Should just be a roll up projector screen and you wear the projector on your forehead like a lamp. Also it’s a lamp and you can project directions on the street when you’re lost at night.
Fuck Elon I got this. Give me money!
Y’all are so stuck in the old linear thinking. Be brave, expand your mind. Rubik’s cube phone when?
That’d be cool. Buy one cheap phone frame, and a pack of 8 screen+electronics assys for $20,000.
I would be really happy if you’re right, but I sadly think Google’s fine here. As far as I understand it, this particular regulation is to prevent a powerful actor (Google, Apple) to use their monopolistic powers to shut alternative stores down. It’s not about allowing customers to install whatever and however. Google doesn’t shut anyone down with this, so they should be fine. They give the option for app developers to choose if they want to run only on an attested platform - which they sell as a completely optional security feature that nobody has to use.
My guess is if the EU is going to take this further it would have to be regarding a potential monopoly on the attested platforms on the device. Google only offering their own platform as trusted could potentially be seen as another monopolistic behavior. If we’re lucky.
Google still allows sideloading, it’s the app developers that can prevent you from installing their app from other sources than Google Play. Sideloading an app works fine on Android if the app’s developer allows it. Apple didn’t allow that even if the app devs wanted it.
I aspire to be as cool as you.
Yes, I am the only one confused. It’s not like half the tech internet blew a gasket over how confusing and bad the renaming of the generations were. Just me. I guess I should just read the whitepapers of every standard going forward, silly me.
*unlhas*
Huge distrust in both the company and the man himself even after leaving the company. But I must say the world got a little more dull and gray when he died.
Right?
*sigh*
*unzips*
Behind the scenes, here’s what those labels correspond to:
USB 5Gbps: USB 3.0 and 3.1 Gen 1
USB 10Gbps: USB 3.1 Gen 2, 3.2 Gen 2×1, and 3.2 Gen 1×2
USB 20Gbps: USB 3.2 Gen 2×2
USB 40Gbps: USB4’s initial version as currently shipping
That’s cool. But even though it finally adds simplicity, it’s still yet another renaming of the same things.
Here’s a snippet from an article from 2019:
The upcoming 20 Gb/s USB 3.2 connection, which offers twice the speeds of the previous iteration, will be known as ‘USB 3.2 Gen 2x2’. Its predecessor, ‘USB 3.1’ will be rebranded to ‘USB 3.2 Gen 2’, while ‘USB 3.0’, which ran at 5 Gb/s speeds, will be termed ‘USB 3.2 Gen 1’.
Reading that I want to shoot myself, and even the latest change, which probably is a good one, drives me slightly mad due to the history of renaming everything so many times.
Also this actively undermines quality in what they do, a requirement to make changes, may make people make changes that aren’t needed, and even possibly changes that can be detrimental to the function.
Indeed, but not only that. Having employees that have as their only task to spend that much time on such a mind numbing task is pretty much in itself a guarantee for poor quality work. Such work should be divided up among people who do other things as well, so that they can break the video watching up in smaller pieces to be able to remain focused and do a better job.
The dear people at the USB Forum should be rewarded with the Nobel prize in namology for their clear, superior and non-confusing naming scheme and naming process that even the nerdiest of nerds can’t follow.
They don’t pay equally to everyone. They benefit large artists more than smaller ones. If you only listen to your totally unknown friend’s music on Spotify, most of your money will still go to popular artists you don’t listen to, and your friend will get nothing because they’re below the threshold of getting a payment. It’s basically theft. Now if some of those popular artists are Spotify themselves behind the scenes, guess where your money is being funneled.
Of course it would have been possible. It would have been possible even like 100 years ago because we had the same alphabet and newspapers and headlines were a thing.
Sadly, yes. They’ve promised* to not change the business model of the Affinity Suite however.
*corporate fluff speak that means absolutely nothing and they’re not beholden to this statement in any way, shape or form
Ah, the John Cleesachu.