Quoting: Liam Dawe

Quoting: Purple Library GuyI notice that the tag says "Native Linux" and the store page has a Steam gear thingie, but the article itself doesn't as far as I can tell actually mention whether it's a native Linux game.

I don't mention specifically in the text every time I write about a Native Linux game that it's Native. The tag is correct though, that's the point of them :)

Oh, OK. I guess I find that kind of intuitively strange. Like, that the practice would be to put tags on articles indicating that they have to do with X, but then have the article say nothing at all about X. And since I normally rely on titles to tell me if I want to read an article, and the article itself to tell me what the article is about, I don't normally look at the tags at all.
So like in this case, I saw the first comment saying "not just a PC, but also a Linux port!" and I thought, hang on, is it actually? It might just be working on the deck via Proton. So I looked through carefully and found that the tag suggested DjBRINE1's comment was perfectly correct.

But if that's the practice, that's the practice. I'll keep it in mind.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I notice that the tag says "Native Linux" and the store page has a Steam gear thingie, but the article itself doesn't as far as I can tell actually mention whether it's a native Linux game.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: PublicNuisance

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: PublicNuisanceNo privacy kill switches; no Coreboot support; looks like closed source firmware required on the GPU and wifi. If I was getting a new laptop i'd spend the extra money and get a Librem 14 or if I was spending the same/less i'd get suped up T440P from Vikings. I can see the appeal if wanting an AMD CPU/GPU is a dealbreaker for you but seems like a lot to give up on the privacy/security front.

A lot of people gave up on privacy long ago. I know I pretty much have; I can either spend a ton of time being obsessed with it and still probably not really succeed, or I can accept that the only reason there probably isn't anyone who knows that much about my really private stuff is that nobody cares, but all the information I generate that has any use for targeted advertising is applied in ten seconds flat and that's just how it's gonna be until the revolution comes.

Be the change you want to see. If you don't care about privacy then that's one thing but if one does care; does nothing to achieve what privacy they can; and then complains how they have none; then they get no sympathy from me.

The change I want to see would be institutional, so it's kind of hard for me to "be" it. Sorta like, while I own an electric car, the change I want to see involves heavy investment in public transit, which is not something I can instantiate individually. The idea that individual consumer behaviour can create meaningful change is largely a myth--and if you delve into the origins of that myth, it turns out to be mostly corporate propaganda trying to deflect people's thinking away from public action (that might actually work, and in doing so cut into profits) to individual, ineffectual action.
So doing this and that to harden your personal privacy is basically spitting into the wind for smugness points. "Doing something to achieve privacy" would involve political action.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

When it comes to time travel, the limits of "What could go wrong" are literally unimaginable.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: PublicNuisanceNo privacy kill switches; no Coreboot support; looks like closed source firmware required on the GPU and wifi. If I was getting a new laptop i'd spend the extra money and get a Librem 14 or if I was spending the same/less i'd get suped up T440P from Vikings. I can see the appeal if wanting an AMD CPU/GPU is a dealbreaker for you but seems like a lot to give up on the privacy/security front.

A lot of people gave up on privacy long ago. I know I pretty much have; I can either spend a ton of time being obsessed with it and still probably not really succeed, or I can accept that the only reason there probably isn't anyone who knows that much about my really private stuff is that nobody cares, but all the information I generate that has any use for targeted advertising is applied in ten seconds flat and that's just how it's gonna be until the revolution comes.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Beamboom

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: BeamboomWhy not use ntfs?

When you own a Linux, Mac and Windows machines, plus various old computers with USB ports running outdated operating systems like OS/2... Fat32 is still the most universally supported filesystem next to FAT16/FAT12 (which of course has a lot more limitations in partition sizes etc.)

If you have a museum of various devices all over the house ;) , it makes sense to use a very old file system as the common denominator.

I just have a very strong suspicion that a lot of those who today use fat32 just use it out of old habit to transfer/share files between two relatively new OSes.

Even using Fat32 doesn't make everything perfect, mind you. Every time I plug a Linux-formatted Fat32 USB into my Windows computer at work, it bitches that there's a problem with it and asks if it should fix it. I ignore that and it works fine, but if you ever get this, be warned: Do not let Windows try to fix the USB. It will ruin it.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Julius

Quoting: Zlopez

Quoting: ShadMessado people really still use FAT32 .....

Definitely, it's the best choice for external HDD that is being used by both Linux and Windows machines.

There is exFat these days. Works the same but doesn't have the limitations of Fat32.

I dunno. With exFat I worry it'll have a rebound off its crash diet and it'll just be Fat32 again, probably right when I started using files that are too big.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: KimyrielleI am not happy with some of the things the West did and still does. It's funny how you preemptively accuse me of supporting an invasion of Mexico or any other nation, when you really don't know me well enough to make such a judgment.

PS: Thanks for accusing me to be clueless about international things.

Apologies on both counts. I guess I just sort of jumped to conclusions based on your contention that NATO is all about Democracy and Freedom, and Russia is motivated by hating that stuff, which I didn't think anyone not clueless about international things, or into my-country-right-or-wrong, would contend. But OK, I'll take it that you're much more balanced in your views than I perceived from your posts.

It's funny how similar certain things are--US liberals today are mostly foreign policy hawks who think Russia is motivated by hating freedom. US Republicans during Bush's term were mostly foreign policy hawks who thought Iraq was motivated by hating freedom. And the US alt-right today seem to believe firmly that US liberals are motivated by hating freedom.

In real life, nobody is motivated by hating freedom. Lots of people have repulsive motivations, but that isn't one of them.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: KimyrielleThis "we were so mean to Russia" thing is just rubbish, IMHO. Russia in general and Putin in particular were salty about losing their Soviet Empire and they want it back, so they can be a big shiny world power again. Ukraine wanted to join the West instead. Russia sent the missiles and the tanks to prevent that from happening. It's about territorial expansion. That's really all there is to the story. No all things in life are super complicated...

See, the difference here is that I have been paying attention to world events for the past 20 years, and you apparently have not. As a result, you do not understand what has been happening.
Consider Georgia, in 2008. They were fixing to join NATO too. Then they attacked this little pseudo-state piece of Georgia that Russia had recognized the independence of, and Russia attacked Georgia. They defeated the Georgian armed forces in a matter of a few days. If their motivation was as you describe, they would have kept it, or tried to. But they didn't in fact do that, they left immediately. But Georgia has taken the hint and stopped trying to join NATO.
Again, this was probably not justifiable. But it was also not undertaken to expand the Russian empire. It was done to block NATO expansion. In that it was somewhat more successful than the current war.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: KimyrielleI still fail to understand what point you're trying to make. Are you trying to say that unfriendly US trade actions are acceptable justification for Russia to invade a neighboring nation without any provocation and reduce it to rubble? From all I know, Ukraine did absolutely -nothing- to threaten Russia, except trying to join a defensive military alliance Russia's leadership doesn't like, because it's standing for values it despises, namely democracy and freedom.

Acceptable justification? No. I've been clear about that.
But you can take an action which will predictably result in someone else doing something which they would not otherwise do, even though that action would not be justified. Like when you do that thing your little brother really hates until he flies into a screaming rage and starts hitting you, so you can complain to your mom. When that happens, sure, the someone else did an unjustified thing. And other people have a right to decry it. But what about you? Their bad action might not be justified, but you still caused it. And if you did so for selfish reasons, you're plenty to blame.
So, the present case. Unfriendly US actions, in many areas of which trade is just one, certainly led to this situation, whether one considers it justified or not. And anyone who is not a US politician should face the basic fact that NATO has not, at least since 1991, been a "defensive" military alliance. It is an aggressive military alliance, which has been involved in numerous aggressive wars. And while it is aggressive against quite a few victims, its most consistent aggressive rhetoric has been against Russia; it seems fairly clear that, if Russia did not have nuclear weapons, NATO would have invaded it long ago (and Americans still talk about "winning" nuclear wars, of all the batshit insane stupidity). So their moves to put more NATO around Russia is predictably going to lead to some kind of dangerous situation, because Russia is paranoid about invasions, for fairly obvious reasons. Putin himself lost a brother in WW II. Does being paranoid about getting invaded justify doing exactly that to someone else? No, but it does make it unsurprising that some of the top US scholars in international relations have been warning for years about something along these lines happening if the US didn't cool it.

As to the "democracy and freedom"--yeah, 2001 called, it wants "hates our freedoms" back. NATO in no way stands for democracy or freedom, and certainly the US doesn't. Good lord, when they took over Kosovo they put literal organleggers in charge--gangsters who actually killed people, harvested their organs, and sold them on the black market. The US is best buddies with literally the most evil undemocratic country on the planet, Saudi Arabia, not to mention all their little crony autocratic statelets. And in Latin America, the only "democracies" the US ever seems happy about are the ones that routinely murder people in human rights organizations. Not that Russia would care either way--of course they don't give a damn about any of that. It's one of the most ludicrous ideas ever about what drives international politics.

View this comment - View article - View full comments