I've yet to see any serious engineer make the argument that Li-ion batteries will be used for seasonal storage. I've more often seen it used as a straw man argument against renewables.
France's reactors became successively more expensive as the need for more layered safety features was exposed. The first generation (CP0, CP1, CP2) was quite inexpensive, the P4 and P'4 designs were already more expensive and the N4 was yet more expensive.
At this point I think if you want inexpensive nuclear, you just have to accept some risk. Going from 99.9% safety to 99.99% adds just too much complexity to remain economically viable.
I just keep my windows maximized all the time. What would I need minimize and maximize buttons for? If I have need for several windows next to each other, Gnome gives me handy keyboard shortcuts.
> Sorry for wanting background programs to run in the background and get out of my way.
Sounds like those "background programs running in the background" should be user daemons instead of GUI applications.
> I just keep my windows maximized all the time. What would I need minimize and maximize buttons for?
I have too many windows open to keep them all maximised.
> If I have need for several windows next to each other, Gnome gives me handy keyboard shortcuts.
Those are undiscoverable and should not be the only option.
> Sounds like those "background programs running in the background" should be user daemons instead of GUI applications.
Shoulda, coulda, woulda. I manage with the programs that are, not the ones that could be. I'm not interested in developing my own DE, not redeveloping all the other programs surrounding it.
One isn't even a GUI application. The second sees regular use with a GUI, but only for reconfigurations that take less than 10 seconds.
My workflow works for me, and has for the past 10, probably 20 years if you include earlier programs doing the same kinds of things. Why would I want to relearn a new UI for only marginal benefits?
> Those are undiscoverable and should not be the only option.
Super left right up down. Literally the most logical, and what's used everywhere. And just grabbing and "squeezing" it onto the target edge works, for longer than on the other two major desktops.
> Super left right up down. Literally the most logical, and what's used everywhere.
It's used everywhere and it's completely undiscoverable. Both are true at the same time.
> And just grabbing and "squeezing" it onto the target edge works, for longer than on the other two major desktops.
Good, that's another option. Now, the only thing missing is the default option that's been in use on computers for over 30 years, namely maximise and minimise buttons.
It doesn't. I don't see why you think I've said that. You're the one who brought that up as an option. My point is that I still want minimise and maximise buttons as an default viable option.
> I have too many windows open to keep them all maximised.
You can have as many windows maximized as you want. There's not upper limit to maximized windows.
> Those are undiscoverable and should not be the only option.
Just do `<super> + appname` and you'll jump to the window in question. No discovery required. The WM will do the discovery for you.
> Shoulda, coulda, woulda. I manage with the programs that are, not the ones that could be. I'm not interested in developing my own DE, not redeveloping all the other programs surrounding it.
> One isn't even a GUI application. The second sees regular use with a GUI, but only for reconfigurations that take less than 10 seconds.
The not-gui application you could put into a user-defined daemon (check [0] on how to create user services). The GUI-for-reconfiguration thingy you can put on a workspace, then it's out of your way and still accessible for reconfiguration.
> Why would I want to relearn a new UI for only marginal benefits?
To be snarky; "Why would I want to relearn riding for a new horseless carriage with only marginal benefits?"
> You can have as many windows maximized as you want. There's not upper limit to maximized windows.
I phrased that wrongly. Sorry about that.
I constantly maximise windows, and I often minimise them too. I use the buttons for that. Sometimes i double click the title bar, and sometimes I just drag to the top. Neither of the latter two, or any other way to maximise or minimise windows, implie that the buttons shouldn't be there. I still use them, regardless of the other options, and I like it that way.
> Just do `<super> + appname` and you'll jump to the window in question. No discovery required. The WM will do the discovery for you.
Knowing that you're supposed to do '<super> + appname' is undiscoverable.
> The not-gui application you could put into a user-defined daemon (check [0] on how to create user services). The GUI-for-reconfiguration thingy you can put on a workspace, then it's out of your way and still accessible for reconfiguration.
No thanks. I'm good.
> To be snarky; "Why would I want to relearn riding for a new horseless carriage with only marginal benefits?"
To be even snarkier: Why live? I still haven't found a good reason. But while I'm doing it, I don't want to make my existence harder.
Relearning a new UI doesn't have any obvious benefits. People would have told me about the benefits by now. The horseless carriage has obvious benefits. People have told me about those, and it didn't take much to convince me. It shouldn't take much to convince me to relearn a new UI. The UI simply has to be good and have features which make my life easier. Gnome isn't and doesn't have any, going by the times I've tried to use it and the ways people try to convince me that it's actually good.
I'm curious; why do you minimize windows? What's your use case for that?
I remember that I stopped minimizing windows when I stopped putting application starters and folders on the desktop - this was the one thing that forced me to minimize windows, because otherwise I couldn't access those (obviously).
> Relearning a new UI doesn't have any obvious benefits. People would have told me about the benefits by now.
Gnome for me has the benefit of being usable without ever actually touching the mouse. I can keep my fingers on the keyboard without ever having to lift my hand and push around the mouse to switch applications, to start applications, find applications. The only time I need to use the mouse is if I'm using applications that have some kind of obligatory/mandatory mouse usage, e.g. Blender or Gimp or the like.
Surely you realize that using a computer in this fashion in the modern era is relegated to a fraction of a percentage of people, right? I agree with the sentiment that an OS should be usable without a pointing device, especially for accessibility reasons or instances where a pointing device is faulty or unavailable, but it should also consider the other 99.999% of general purpose computer users.
It should be usable by both a mouse-only, by both a keyboard-only and with a combination of the two.
Accessibility is paramount in and of itself, but it also has the added benefit of helping non-standard situations. Like I occasionally use my desktop over TV from bed with only a mouse, or the reverse, I may only have a keyboard at the time. Or I'm just eating/drinking something.
Gnome performs splendidly here, windows and Mac, much less so.
Yeah of course i've got no problem that people use it, but the devs have started to take a vert opiniated approach that is not aligned with my vision. It's just unfortunate that an update can break all my habits
That would be relevant when a Debian/Ubuntu/whatever upgrade switched those users to Sway. That's the problem: The Gnome 3 users wanted to create something different but instead of doing just that they changed a project that already had existing users.
I use Nitter/Xcancel entirely because I don't have an account, and Twitter is now unusable without one. There's still content of some value there. People still link to it and now I can't read what they shared with me.
I find this a very reasonable frame of mind. Systemic issues and failures cannot be fixed or addressed by individual action. They have to be addressed in a systemic way.
You sound like you've swallowed pro-US-propaganda hook, line and sinker.
The reason the middle-east is at constant war is because colonialist machinations. Same goes for south-Saharan Africa. And the US is a big colonialist player, just ask Vietnam, South-America, Iran, Afghanistan, etc. They all have been attacked by the US because of US colonial interests. If anything, one could make the argument that the PRC is treading much more lightly than the US.
That said - I'm not defending the PRC by any way; it's a state-capitalist hell hole that's suppressing workers by denying them any ability to organize and whose political class is purely focused on furthering their own interests and that of the moneyed elite, the common person be damned.
reply