There are only so many ways to represent the spectrum of light.

You’re absolutely right, but that’s the pre-smartphone era, not the pre-cellphone era.

Ok, I have an experiment for you. Go touch some really hot chili peppers, then wash you hands. With soap. Three times, if you like. Then rub your eyes. Then tell me that felt absolutely fine. Go ahead, I’ll wait.

Capsaicin is non-soluble in water and basically doesn’t wash off.

DLSS has no application in AI, though, so that point is not really valid here.

Again this fake quote? I know it’s justa mindless copy-and-paste, but at least put it into context. Marx never wrote that. Here’s page 651 of the Moore translation, and here’s a discussion of the origin of that quote.

I accidentally untarred archive intended to be extracted in root directory

I still don’t see how this is an argument for “I do not want to learn.”

Because this is just one thing that you clearly know how to do and probably enjoy.

I don’t know how many of the following things you are good at and enjoy, but the same argument applies to all of them: cooking, knitting, repairing a car, welding, growing crops. All of these are desirable and apply to things that most of us use regularly. But you just cannot expect everyone to learn them all in order to enjoy the products they could create or enhance by them. It is not problematic to say you just want to use something and not learn everything that is necessary to create or master it.

If you cannot see that this is true of a CLI, then I have run out of ways to try to explain it to you.

Just for the record, these are not the same questions you asked in your first post. But to answer them: nothing is different about this. But at some people don’t want to keep learning how to use stuff, they want to start using it. And there’s a difference between “learn how to use a new vacuum cleaner” (to give a particularly obvious example) and “learn how to use a completely new paradigm that is different from everything you have used before and doesn’t have a clear starting point”. (And before you say that the first steps are easy, let me rename all commands in your CLI and see how quickly you find out how to read a man page.)

Mind you, I’m not talking about myself, having used CLIs since the 80s, but just because I know how to do something doesn’t mean it should be a fun activity for everyone.

It’s not, though. Tying a command doesn’t take a lot of time, but learning what commands are useful in a specific situation does. Even “ls -la” is an achievement you need experience for. And it doesn’t help that if you get stuck and ask (around here or in other enlightened circles) the answer you receive is usually some variant of “Have you read the 40-screen man page?”

Here you go: https://bookwyrm.social/book/199536/s/pushing-ice

Because why would you do that? Do you also have a chain store where servers pour sulphuric acid over your cup to show that it doesn’t melt?

Ok, thanks for clarifying. I was asking for a statement in support of your initial claim that turned out to be completely wrong: they didn’t duplicate the code upon creation of the project, they didn’t create a fork under their control, and they don’t make independent changes to the code.

What they are doing is customising the current code of Firefox at the time of compiling the LibreWolf project. If you really insist that that is a fork, then one of us doesn’t understand what a fork is, and I’m not going to continue a fruitless argument.

Interesting, because there is no mention of that anywhere on their website. Indeed, the workflow overview in their source repo clearly states that in order to build LibreWolf, you need the current Firefox source tree, and this is reflected in the Makefile, which fetches the Firefox source tarball associated with the same version. Nothing points to a repository they created at any prior point.

Can you link to some official statement that supports this claim?

LibreWolf is not a fork, though. It’s a customised version of FF, so every shit they introduce has to be painstakingly removed by the LW team, provided that is even possible. (See Manifest V3 in Chrome.)

They were shipped in z-code, but z-code is basically machine code, and indeed, you can patch any game if you want to fiddle with the binary. The source code is human-readable.

She regularly posted on Mastodon, and during the last month there was a post every few days about how much she was in pain. It was heartbreaking really, and finding out that she lost that battle didn’t make it any better.

sigh If more than 7 seats out of 100 are filled, you will make a profit. Happier?

I’m not going to comment on your second paragraph, since it doesn’t contradict what I wrote. And if I were a GEMA shill, I probably wouldn’t provide links for my claims, but you do you.

All of that is incorrect.

You can check the GEMA fees here: https://www.gema.de/portal/app/tarifrechner/preisrechner - I had it calculate the fees for a 4-hour concert with 100 seats and an entrance fee of 5 Euros, and the total GEMA fee is 31,35 €. If all seats are filled, that is less than 10% of your income. Certainly a lot of money, but a far cry from “all of said fee or even more”.

Secondly, if you are not a GEMA member and all the music you play is non-GEMA (and written by yourself), you don’t have to pay anything, see here for example: https://www.anwalt.de/rechtstipps/gema (central quote: “Der GEMA-Pflicht unterliegen dabei alle Musikwerke, für die sie die Verwertungsrechte erhalten hat”, translation: “GEMA liability applies to all musical works for which it has received exploitation rights.”)

I don’t like the GEMA either, but let’s stay with the verifiable facts, please.

In Sam & Max Hit the Road, when you repeatedly try to pick a stationary object up. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/szTtHNEg6vo