For what it's worth; since the Steam Deck came out the vast majority of my gaming library has become playable on my Linux desktop. The Windows partition was removed shortly after I got a Deck and realised Valve have done such an incredible job with Proton to make games playable on Linux. With my library of games, at least, I've not had any major issues that linger in the memory.
I switched my personal desktop to Linux a couple years ago from an MS "feature" of ads in the start menu search on insiders. My MIL has been using Pop for about 4 months now without issue after a phishing attempt.
My SO after seeing me watching a video on this feature is now ready to switch her laptop and desktop over after checking that the two games she plays regularly are supported.
I've seen a lot about OpenTF and I applaud the (very large) effort to get a viable alternative in place in short order. Is anyone aware of corresponding projects for other tools in the HashiCorp suite?
Am I understanding this correctly: you need to pay for a permit for hiking in some places in the USA, and it's a lottery so you might not even be able to go once you've paid the money?
Just to be clear, this applies to only the most popular parts of National Parks. Most National Parks don't require permits or they are easy to get. There are also tons of ways to hike that aren't National Parks. If you have the skills and gear, I recommend wilderness areas in National Forests.
This is like when that new gelato place opens up and has a 45 minute line for $15 ice cream, and the regular ice cream place is basically as good and has normal prices and no line.
I agree. To add my POV, I feel this is just another step in the pimping of national land. The government and American people are once again being taken advantage of by one of the big consulting firms. Big surprise. Places like Gatlinburg have become cesspools as it's pretty much a mini Las Vegas of the East. As someone who came from a rural background, you couldn't pay me to go to one of the bigger national parks so I can wait in line to faux climb a peak.
On the private land side, more and more landowners are leasing their land for hunting. I'm in the rural midwest - not long ago you could hunt on just about any private property simply by walking up to the person's front door and asking nicely. Nowadays more and more properties are leased out and under strict contracts that limit access. In my area many contracts limit foot traffic, not just hunting.
Luckily my family owns land, and we let neighbors on it, but this is becoming more and more outlier philosophy. I totally get it all and understand it from an economic point of view, but it doesn't make it suck any less.
On the public side however, this just doesn't sit right with me. There must be a different solution.
you're not charged for nothing - you're charged for a chance to get something. If the lottery was free, what prevents you from signing up multiple times?
The fact is, demand for these spots are too high. I'd rather see an auction, but that'd be too unfair for people who aren't rich enough - public goods are still public and should be available.
Is the lottery fee really what's preventing people from signing up multiple times? Aren't there so many other services in this world that manage that pretty well without a lottery fee?
I can understand that reasoning, and it does make sense to me too, but only if all the money goes to the park. Ideally then even only for successful applications.
Ideally you should have an option to support the park even if you don't go/don't want/can't go for a hike and in any case you should receive a clear breakdown of the costs in what goes where.
I had no idea about this either. For me this screams of a dystopian future civilization (which is apparently now) where even access to the outdoors has been limited due to overpopulation and is now regulated through a lottery.
I mean, I get it, I understand that they need to limit the amount of people visiting certain sensitive ecosystems, but still... something about this just seems fundamentally wrong to me. Access to the great outdoors, to nature, seems like such a fundamental human right to me.
While I understand the need to protect sensitive ecosystems, restricting access to nature altogether is extremely problematic. There must be better solutions that don't infringe on what should be a basic human right. If overpopulation is truly an issue, we need to find ways to distribute people more evenly and improve infrastructure to handle more visitors in a sustainable way. A lottery system should really be an absolute last resort.
Protected spaces would be over-run without permits and enforcement of said permits. These are fragile places. The dystopia would be a graffiti-laden, human excrement covered Wave with garbage laying everywhere and tourists piling on top of each other.
Allowing the best spots to be completely overrun seems far more dystopian to me. To be clear, you do not need a permit to have an incredible experience at a national park.
Not if you go in the off season... Arches is also unique because it was legitimately seeing permanent damage due to overuse. There are plenty of other national parks in Utah you can go to whenever you like.
For some places would be over run given ease of access and historical features draw huge crowds.
Everyone wants ultimate freedom then complains when they show up and everyone else with ultimate freedom has trashed the place.
The general public has a huge credibility problem of its own to grapple with, but somehow it’s always someone else’s job to sit and reflect, find the solution.
My circle also just use "code" as far as I'm aware, though I tend to think of it as a definition instead. Template would also fit but you can use templates within Terraform so that could be confusing.
Personally I'm glad that companies are starting to not ship new cables with phones and would like to see it extended to other rechargables. I've thrown out so many micro-USB cables over the last few years and I still have them all over the place.
Cables and chargers feel wasteful, but eliminating them only has a psychological benefit. There is zero impact in real-terms.
I have a few buckets of tech that I refuse (no pun intended) to throw out. I am a techy person. The total capacity of those buckets is under 3 cubic feet after I rationalised it down from a collection 10x that size built up over 20 years.
Meanwhile my family produces 200 cubic feet of landfill a year and 200 cubic feet of recycling a year. My e-waste is at least three orders of magnitude smaller than my household waste.
Yeah not gonna lie, i definitely have had plenty of left over charging cables, bricks, and wires over the years, and i don't even upgrade every year. I'm using the same charging set up i used for like the last 2 years on my X when i got my 12 pro. 5w brick, charged over night. New battery lasts me all day even with heavy use. I can see why it's inconvenient for people who are just getting into iPhones though. But now samsung is doing the same anyways, iirc.
> I can see why it's inconvenient for people who are just getting into iPhones though.
It would be nice if they offered you a free cable and small brick if you wanted one. Most people wouldn't actually take them up on the offer, but someone getting their first phone (or passing their old phone/charger to a family member) would actually want this.
They specifically mention rust based backends for curl where the author of curl was funded to integrate as a starting point. I don't see any mention of funding being exclusively for organisations other than the author(s)?
I think it's a fairly large assumption to make that they all voted for him specifically. I don't think it's too crazy (given he won <50% of the popular vote in the 2016 primaries) to assume a large number of those voters voted "Not Democrat" or voted Republican instead of voting Trump specifically.
That's beside the point: there is _obviously_ a fraction that is much greater than 0% of the people who voted for Trump (whether they voted for him or against his opponents) who will now feel oppressed because the person they voted for - whatever reason - is now banned from the largest social media network in the world. This fraction is from the large (millions) group of people who had nothing to do with the riots.
I mean, read the article: Facebook has realized the same thing and that's why they are recommending their employees to not wear Facebook branded clothing.
Like it or not, the pool of disillusioned people is now much larger and I'm not particularly keen on learning what effects that will have down the road.
They also felt oppressed because the Trump lied to them repeatedly and told them their vote was stolen. Luckily many Republicans, including the 2 cabinet members that resigned, have decided they can no longer support Trump. Twitter banning him will lead to less division, not more.
This is a problem with the US system at the moment. It was the same issue with the Brexit referendum; people got two choices (remain or leave), while the process was a lot more subtle and there were plenty of 'in between' solutions available. People voted leave for single issues, while leaving actually caused multiple issues that affected them directly.
Anyway tl;dr the US needs massive political reform and one should never be constrained to just two choices.
What makes you say that about the UK? As an American, I’ve always been envious of what I perceive as the UK’s greater electoral flexibility, expressed through systems like snap elections and Parliament’s role in appointing the chief executive.
Same problems as the US. We have a two party state, which means very broad coalitions, no real choice, and a lot of unheard voices. Just like the US, we have suffered deindustrialisation as companies shipped production overseas, encouraged by our politicians, and those people who lost out have no way of fighting back. Their resentment has grown to the point where it is now finding expression through Brexit and populists like Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson.
Proportional representation provides a "release valve" for angry minorities, in that new parties can form. Some people think this is a danger, because they see those parties gaining some real power, but what usually happens is their supporters see the realities of political compromise, see some gains, at least feel represented, and the anger recedes.
The first place we're seeing the cracks is the UK leaving the EU whilst NI has not, and support for Scottish independence on the rise.
More pertinent to your reply: without a constitution the flexibility is simply exploited for party political gain, which often destabilises the country. Similarly, the trend has been in recent decades for the executive to increasingly take power away from parliament, which has proceeded unchecked. So some of us envy your constitution and the lack of gaming in e.g. the timing of elections. And let's not even get started on the "ceremonial" royal family...
I suppose what I mean is that I like how this process produces PMs who are aligned (at least to start) with the majority will of Parliament, since the party/coalition with the most seats in Parliament gets to pick them.
In contrast, US Presidents are elected with zero input from Congress and are often at odds with the House and/or Senate majority.
The two parties that hold all the power in the US make sure that it’s just the two parties. How do you reform a system when the people who benefit from the system hold ask the cards?
Yeah. I don't hold out hope of it surviving any vm workloads (vagrant, docker desktop etc.) but i'm ok with just installing the cli tools and connecting to remote clusters.
