I've used various flavors of Arch for years. I tried Nix and spent several hours failing to do anything - like table-stakes shit like installing packages.
I went back to Arch.
Many games use multiple threads, but they don't do so very effectively.
The vast majority of games use Unreal or Unity, and those engines (as products) are optimized to make the developer experience easy - notably NOT to make the end product performant.
It is pretty common that there is one big thread that handles rendering, and another for most game logic. This is how Unreal does it 'out of the box'. It also splits the physics calculations off into multiple threads semi-automatically, and the standard default setup will have render and game logic on separate threads.
Having a lot of moving characters around is taxing because all the animation states have to go through the main thread that is also doing pathfinding for all the characters and any AI scripts that are running.. often you can't completely separate these things since where a character wants to move may determine whether they walk/run/jump/fly/swim and those need different animations.
This often leads to the scenario where someone with an older 8+ core chip is wondering why the game is stuttering when 'it is only using 10% of my cpu' - because the render thread or game logic thread is stuffed and is pinning one core/thread at 100%.
Effective concurrency requires designing for it very early, and most games are built in iterative refinements with the scope and feature list constantly changing - not conducive to solving the big CS problem of splitting each frame's calculations into independent chunks.
The issue isn't that they didn't work, as I said I wasn't expecting them to when I bought the mouse.
The issue is their behavior has started changing with updates. I don't mind, but I'm a tinkerer. My wife, my MiL, most of my friends, absolutely do not want to deal with an inconsistent computer experience.
Different definitions of 'ready' I guess. Been using primarily Linux for years, so it was 'ready' for me back then - but nothing has changed in the mean time that would change my recommendation for people who just want a boring stable computer.
I love Linux, but it isn't ready.
Two weeks ago my side mouse buttons started working (they require Logitech software on Windows, wasn't expecting them to work). Last week they stopped. This week they work again.
Is this major? Not at all. Would it drive my mother-in-law into a rage rivaling that of Cocaine Bear? Absolutely. Spare me from the bear, keep Linux for the tinkerers.
Most games (pre-ai at least) would use a brush for this and manually tweak the result if it ended up weird.
E.g. if you were building a desert landscape you might use a rock brush to randomly sprinkle the boulder assets around the area. Then the bush brush to sprinkle some dry bushes.
Very rare for someone to spend the time to individually place something like a rock or a tree, unless it is designed to be used in gameplay or a cutscene (e.g. a climable tree to get into a building through a window).
Nvidia has 90% of the discrete GPU market.
Kind of important that things work there.
Linux isn't ready.
While many things will work 'out of the box', many won't. Hell, for like 3 months HDR was causing system-wide crashes on Plasma for Nvidia cards, so the devs just disabled the HDR options until there was an upstream fix.
There are still a host of resume-from-sleep issues, Wayland support is still spotty, and most importantly - not every piece of software will run.
Linux is my daily driver, I have learned to live and love the jank. My wife uses windows and does not want to be confronted with a debugging challenge 5% of the time when she turns on her computer, and I think that is fair.
These kinds of posts paper over lots of real issues and can be counterproductive. If someone jumps into the ecosystem without understanding, these kinds of posts only set them up for frustration and disappointment.
Bro it isn't worth it. I respect what you are trying to do, but Lemmy is an echo chamber on these things. You are completely right in what you are saying, but you're wasting your time commenting here.
Clearly, if Kamala had won she would have personally resurrected every dead Palestinian and single-handedly repaired all the infrastructure. Let's conveniently ignore that she was Vice President in an administration that circumvented Congress multiple times to deliver arms with less oversight, that (almost) every US elected official has vocally supported Israel's actions for 70+ years, and that Kamala herself committed to nothing of substance on the topic.
Have never listened to Rogan.
What were his claims about the vaccines, mask efficacy, and ivermectin?
You're right, it's all lies. The Dems had the best platform ever and that's why they won.
Y'all are really just allergic to actual discourse.
I get it, you don't like Trump being president. Neither do I. Personally blaming me for the party gaslighting about Biden's fitness, then running Kamala on trans erasure, 'most lethal' military, a militarized border, tax cuts, etc. etc. Is counterproductive. Large parts of her platform, and this is not an exaggeration, were literally what Trump ran on in 2016.
Did you vote for Trump's policies in 2016? Why are you insisting everyone do just that in 2024?
How has voting against worked for you? Given that you fled the country, it doesn't sound like it got the outcome you wanted.
With the data point, I'll keep voting for things I want - will let you know if that strategy works better.
It is impossible to argue against conspiratorial thinking.
Let's say Kamala had narrowly won the election, would 2028 be the right time to hold the Democrats accountable for real, useful, policy changes? Or would there be another Republican Boogeyman (maybe Ted Cruz again? Or Desantis?) that would absolutely need to be defeated before it would be proper - in your opinion - to ask these public servants to actually serve me?
According to many commenters here, and I assume many of the downvoters whenever a comment questions the utility of unconditional loyalty to the blue party, the US has been hovering just above an irreversible descent into a fascist dictatorship.
So let me ask you, which of the leaders you voted for reversed that decline? Because the 'vote blue no matter who' dogma has given over a decade of historically unpopular candidates who consistently lose to - again according to you - naked fascists.
The only way a political party changes is when they stop winning.
If Democrats think they will win by being Republicans who hate the gays a little bit less, then that is what they'll do. They were just shown that that isn't a winning strategy, so we'll see if the party changes tack or doubles down.
"You monster, it is your fault you gave us Trump"
I make my voting preferences known in every primary, state, and federal election. I actively volunteer for candidates I like. The party knows what will earn my vote, if they wanted it. If they make the strategic bet that getting my vote will cost them more from somewhere else, then that is on them.
"That is so entitled, how could you"
Have you ever considered that the reason both parties seem so out of touch with mainstream thought is because they have 10s of millions of people who will vote regardless of policy, thereby preventing the parties from understanding what is actually effective in getting them votes?
Elections are an information gathering mechanism.
The biggest factor is diet - a large portion of ingested water comes from food.
Someone who snacks on carrots is going to need to drink a very different amount of water to stay hydrated as someone who eats jerky and crackers.
There's also obviously differences in kidney function, salt retention, even just body size. Current medical advice is to just drink when you are thirsty, which works for just about everyone.
Thermo-electrochemical cycles.
The idea is simple: the favorability of a chemical reaction is a function of temperature, some reactions are more favorable at high temperatures, some at lower. For electrochemical reactions (e.g. batteries) this means a change in voltage at different temperatures. Some reactions have higher voltages, some lower. By choosing a pair of redox reactions such that the direction of charge transfer can be reversed within a specified temperature envelope, one can create a thermal engine that directly converts heat to electrical energy without requiring a turbine.
There's lots of research on this, sometimes called the 'omnivorous' flow battery.
Completely correct. There is also a (much rather in the US) ScD degree - Doctor of science.
In the US, it is often identical to a PhD. If your institution offers it, you just check a box at the end of your program on whether you want a PhD or ScD. In Europe, an ScD is a higher degree than a PhD and requires some extra work to obtain.
I find it kind of bussin', I find it kind of cap. The dreams in which I'm dying are the ones that kinda slap.
The price differential doesn't really exist anymore, though. If they were recommending 4TB, then I'd agree (only a few 4TB 5.0 and they are quite pricey), but at 2TB you're looking at like $10 difference between something like the MP700 and the SN850X they recommend (not counting all the black Friday sales going on).
I'd be very careful relying on that site.. just flipped through some of the build and it was very strange.
E.g. they were recommending a $500 or $900 CASE at the highest tiers - not even good cases, you can get something less than half the price with better performance. They recommended a single pcie 4.0 SSD and a SPINNING HARD DRIVE for a motherboard with pcie 5.0 m2 slots. Recommending CPU coolers that are far, far in excess of requirements (a 3x140mm radiator for a 100W chip? Nonsense). Memory recommendations for AMD builds are also sus - DDR5 6000 CL30 is what those cups do best with, they were recommending DDR5600 CL32 kits for no reason.
Just strange.. makes me question the rest of their recommendations.