I don't use Gnome myself, but I have over many years (and before Gnome 3 came out) come to similar conclusions about what you need or don't need, by slowly removing more and more Gnome components from my Gnome 1/2 setup until I only really had the window manager running.

So, thanks to virtual desktops (aka workspaces) and superior window management (like moving/resizing windows with the keyboard, changing focus directionally instead just Alt-Tab, and being able to snap windows to corners or other windows), I tended to have no windows hidden behind other windows. This makes the taskbar and the minimize button unnecessary.

Because I launched apps through shortcuts and the terminal (now I use dmenu), the start menu was unnecessary. The start menu is slow to navigate, and inexplicably only uses a small fraction of the screen. Gnome's launcher thingy uses the whole screen and has a nice search bar.

I never thought putting shortcuts on the desktop was a good idea. They're hidden behind all the windows! Windows 98 (or 95B?) had to invent a new button just to get rid of all the windows so the desktop can be shown. You can create shortcuts on Gnome's launcher thingy and that goes in front of your windows. Whoa imagine that.

I also got rid of title bars from windows on my own setup, because I use keyboard shortcuts to do those things and title bars use up precious screen space. Obviously for users using the mouse, you cannot get rid of the title bar. Gnome opted to instead put extra buttons in there, since title bars tended to be mostly empty space. I think it's a good idea.

I do like when stuff is a little bigger and a bit of space is in between stuff. I think it's aesthetically pleasing and my eyesight isn't great either.

Also since I only rarely use Gnome myself, but I do have it set up on my mom's computer, I appreciate that it's not too overwhelming with the options and buttons. That makes it easier for me to find stuff when I do occasionally use it, and I think it makes it easier for her as well.

And yet if Nvidia went poof, you'd hardly notice.

The NYT just dropped a big article about the 2022 peace talks, even going over specific points. I think this means the Americans are ready to negotiate. If this continues the average redditor lib will be discussing the specific concessions Ukraine could be making instead of talking about how Russia is eventually going to collapse from getting owned too hard.

The way this breaks and introduces the stalker, and then turns into a chase is so fucking great. Best chase music ever. Creepy and exciting and panicky.

Well that's interesting. I was merely thinking they want more funding for their own (very much pro-active) disinformation, which they've already been doing the whole time. Basically a rebrand.

Most moral argument for supporting genocide.

I disagree. The worst election poster is actually this one:

Show

Defend values.
Protect peace.

Don't download random .exe's off the internet. This is pretty much the only thing that an antivirus has any chance of catching, since it's where you'll find "old" malware your antivirus knows about. If you do risky stuff like that (pirating PC games?) maybe don't use that computer for anything important or personal.

Then the usual stuff, which you want to do anyway, because antivirus doesn't help with that:

• Update your software.
• If you have any reason to believe your computer might be compromised, completely wipe the hard drive, start from scratch, and change all your passwords.
• Install an ublock origin to block ads. Ads are a common attack vector.
• Assume every link or attachment from an email or message is a scam unless you were expecting it or you can prove otherwise.

Antivirus is a fucked approach, it basically scans files for what they call malware "signatures", which they accumulate over the years from malware found in the wild. Problems with that:

• False positives.
• False negatives.
• Slows down the computer.
• Malware developers can obviously see what the antivirus is doing, so they change their malware till it is no longer detected, and/or sabotage the antivirus once they're on the computer.
• You now have a privileged uberparser on your computer, that unpacks and parses all manner of file formats, and it is being run on everything. This increases attack surface a lot.

The whole idea is misguided, and only exists because these companies managed to scare people into buying their snake oil.

No. Linux doesn't make your CPU go faster.

The main thing where Linux helps on old hardware is that you can run it on less RAM, meaning you have more RAM for applications. And running out of RAM is very bad and slows everything down massively. If low memory is not your problem, it won't be faster, or at least not significantly.

The Linux GPU drivers for AMD and Intel are completely different from the Windows ones, and that can in theory make some difference (not necessarily for the better), but not a massive one unless there's something fucked going on.

There's a bunch of other specific or minor stuff, for example file operations can be faster on Linux, but you'd only notice that if you're doing some specific workload involving lots of small files, like switching branches on git or something like that.

idk I'm not seeing it (the photoshop I mean, I see the white people)

I, as tiny little shit, was only trained up to like 7-digit addition (with far fewer examples given I suspect) and I also generalize near perfectly to 100+ digits.

20th century food court from last call bbs was really good

Charmander infestation?

Nice. Yeah, train infrastructure always takes up lots of space. Sometimes you gotta put in holding tracks and the stations get even larger. Looks like you're using the same train for input/outputs, how's that working for you and how many stops does that train make?

I always wondered why people benchmark how many lines/s their terminals can render, but I guess this is actually important if you're a C++ dev.

Oh fuck me why did I never figure that out. Thank you!

Lol. I think I get a rough idea why this may be NP-hard (sounds like something you could use some constraint solver software to get a decently close-to-optimal solution in reasonable time maybe, though I don't know much about this). But more importantly, factorio train cars have a ton of slots (like 50 or something of that magnitude, each holding 50/100/200 pieces of one item). You could probably put literally every ingredient in the whole game in a two- or three-car train. I saw a challenge run where someone did something like this, I think the challenge was to just use one single train and no belts at all. Anyway my suggestion would be to make one train only serve one recipe (or a couple) at a time and that problem becomes trivial and it'll be better for throughput anyway.