That’s a misinterpretation of the poem. The point was that both paths were equally valid but no matter what he picked, he would always think that the other was better. It was a poem about “the grass is always greener on the other side”

Yes, you can add the Mozilla ppa and they offer a non-snap version. I think the Deb that you download from their website also isn’t snap, but I haven’t tried it

Without another name change, I don’t think that phrase will ever go away, for the simple fact that X as a name is too short and nondescript. In speech, X could refer to a someone you broke up with, or it could just be the beginning of another word, serving as a prefix. In text, it could refer to the actual letter itself, or the close button on a window, or a placeholder, or something NSFW.

There’s simply too many ways that X can be interpreted that even if people associate Twitter with X, people will still specify “formerly Twitter” just to avoid confusion

Would definitely not recommend KDE Neon. It’s more of a showcase of new KDE features than an actual usable OS. I currently use Kubuntu and it’s fine. I wish it updated more frequently but the update frequency isn’t slow enough to really be a deal breaker.

I disabled snap Firefox, not really because I’m ideologically against snap, but because snap Firefox is annoying to use. Other than that, the OS generally just works out of the box.

I’ve heard good things about OpenSUSE, but I’ve never tried it. My personal opinion is that I want to stick to the most common distros so that it’s easier to find troubleshooting advice

Found someone nice. It was sheer chance, really. Met with a new neighbor and she had a crush on me. Was friends for a while. Years later decided to get into a relationship with her.

Pretty sure that’s the point. It’s bait

Most PhD’s in university actually prefer to be called by their first name. As a graduate student, one of the most jarring culture shocks is to learn to call professors by their first names. At least that’s the case in the US, not sure about elsewhere

It’s a multifaceted answer for me, I feel.

Linux is weird, on a technical level. It’s funky and broken and has weird quirks you have to remember. But it’s not malicious. Wendel from Level1Tech said it best in one of his videos: the headaches with Linux are haphazard, the headaches with Windows are adversarial.

It’s not a perfect solution to Windows, but at least for some people, the respect that it has for its users (ie, no ads, not trying to fight you on everything you’re trying to do, gives you the ability and freedom to tinker as you please) offsets its technical problems.

Additionally, Linux is missing a lot of core applications. There’s many applications that do have a Linux version, and many that can run through a compatibility layer, and out of those that are left, many have really solid replacements. Heck, you might be surprised to find that some of the software that you use already were originally intended to be replacements for Windows-only applications.

But there’s still a handful of core applications that don’t work on Linux and don’t really have a good replacement, and even missing 1 can easily break someone’s work flow. No, LibreOffice isn’t a full replacement of Microsoft Office, no, GIMP can’t actually replace Photoshop.

As for terminal, there’s no way around it. You will have to open terminal at some point. To be clear, most, if not all, things that you might imagine yourself doing likely has some way of doing it through a GUI. The issue is that as a new user, you don’t know where the GUI is, or what it’s called, or how to even ask. And when the tutorials that you find online tell you to just use terminal, that ends up being the only practical way of getting things done. So it’s a weird Catch-22, where only experienced users who know where all the menus are will know where the GUI options are, but it’s the new users who need it the most.

My understanding is that Linux developers in the past several years have been explicitly trying to make the OS more accessible to a new user, but it’s not quite there yet.

Overall, I think Linux is deeply flawed. But seeing how Microsoft seems to be actively trying to make Windows worse, Linux ends up being the only OS where have faith that it will still be usable in 2 years.

If anything, the more people switch to Linux, the more pressure there will be to make the OS more accessible to new users, and also for software companies to release a Linux-compatible version of their software. Some brave people just need to take the dive first

The issue is that chatgpt’s logic works backwards - they take the prompts as fact, then find sources to back up the things stated in the prompt. And additionally, chatgpt will frame the argument in a seemingly reasonable and mild tone so as to make the argument appear unbiased and balanced. It’s like the entirety of r/relationshipadvice rolled into one useless, billion-dollar spambot

If someone isn’t aware of the sycophant nature of chatgpt, it’s easy to interpret the response as measured and reliable. When the topic of using chatgpt as relationship advice comes up (it happens concerningly often), I make a point to show that you can get chatgpt to agree with virtually anything you say, even in hypothetical cases where it’s absurdly clear that the prompter is in the wrong. At least Google won’t tell you that beating your wife is OK

Sure, using “debate” may be more accurate, but I have never seen people use the term in their daily lives. In my experience, people just lump debates and heated arguments into a collective “arguments.” There may be a finer point to be made here about linguistic prescriptivism versus descriptivism, but that’s beside the point.

If we were to interpret the OOP as you have (ie, heated arguments), then I will agree that that’s quite unacceptable. However, based on what I’ve said above and based on reading between the lines of the OOP, we can generally assume that the arguments were not heated, especially since the girlfriend was stated to have been able to simply walk away to consult ChatGPT for what I assume are non-trivial moments of time

“couple of big arguments and some smaller ones.”

Let’s do a count:

• big arguments: 2
• smaller arguments: at least 3, let’s say 5
• months: 8
• Number of total arguments per month: (2+5) /8 = 0.875 arguments per month = less than 1 argument per month

Tell me, what is an acceptable frequency of arguments for you?

And I thought we left the “just break up over minor inconveniences” mindset behind on Reddit

Yes… I know some people who rely exclusively on Chatgpt to meditate their arguments. Their reasoning is that it allows them to frame their thoughts and opinions in a non-accusatory way.

My opinion is that chatgpt is a sycophant that just tries to agree with everything you say. Garbage in, garbage out. I suppose if the argument is primarily emotionally driven, with minimal substance, then having Chatgpt be the mediator might be helpful.

Domestic ducks are white

The two types of mentalities on display:

1. I’ll eat too much so I shouldn’t buy any
2. I’ll eat too much so I should buy more

Because the ones that we hear about are the ones that are good enough to have even made it out of Japan. If a game was bad, it wouldn’t be localized to an English-speaking audience, and we wouldn’t even know it exists.

It’s the same sort of thinking as asking why (insert media here) was better in the past. The answer is simple - good songs, games, movies, etc. tend to be more memorable, and so we remember the good ones and forget the bad ones. To put it briefly, there’s survivorship bias.

Patriotic duck

Braid. Sounds like a dress up game but it’s a puzzle platformers about time travel. I always have to explain it every time I talk about it

For me, everything is a belief unless it satisfies the following criteria:

1. It is generally accepted as true among experts
2. There is ample evidence that is both personally convincing and leaves no room for alternate interpretations (not the same as #1, since many fields have “commonly accepted knowledge” that is generally acknowledged as most likely true but has no evidence to back it up)
3. It is specific enough that it cannot be interpreted in a way that is misleading

I find that the one that trips up most people is #3, since some people speak in technically true but overly broad statements and the listener ends up filling in the gaps with their own biases. The listener leaves feeling like their biases have been confirmed by data, not realizing that they have been misled.

In the end, according to my criteria, very little can be categorized as true knowledge. But that’s fine. You can still make judgements from partial or biased data or personal beliefs. You just can’t be resolute about it and say that it’s true.

So you react to both red light and blue light, but you react to blue light way better than to red. So blue light filters still checks out, but they’re more of a mitigation than a fix