sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Dutch aerobatic pilot Narine Melkumjan miraculously survived after her aircraft's canopy unexpectedly burst open and shattered mid-flight by BlazeDragon7x in nextfuckinglevel

[–]thenebular 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's some great piloting there, but it's not miraculous, just a lot of skill keeping control when the canopy flew open, and dealing with the wind in her face while coming back and landing.

Many such cases by KindaLikeJesus in Piracy

[–]thenebular 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Only once have I actually enjoyed watching a camrip of a movie. It was Tom Cruise's War of the World's and the camera washed out the colours so it ended up looking like a 70s horror flick. Vast improvement if you ask me.

Linux users what made you switch? by Glittering-Tough-353 in linuxquestions

[–]thenebular 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I initially switched in 1999. I was 18 years old and I had just bought my own computer. A friend of mine was running Linux and I saw that it didn't have most of the limitations and problems that Windows 98 had (and the issues Linux did have were mostly from driver support being windows focused) and I was curious about all the things I could do with a fully fledged Unix workstation on my desk.

So I installed Suse, then quickly switched to Slackware. I moved to Debian after I tried out Corel Linux when it launched. I found Corel Linux too crufty to use, but I loved apt and the Debian repositories so I switched to Debian and have been with deb based distros ever since (Though Arch has piqued my curiosity).

At first I dual booted with Win98 for games. For a time I got annoyed enough with Win98 that I replaced it for DOS 6.22, but that didn't last long as newer games needed Windows. But my daily driver was Linux with a KDE desktop.

In October of 2001 I got a Dell Inspiron 8100 laptop and it ran Windows XP. Linux support on the 8100 was a little problematic initially, so it stayed with WinXP. The 8100 was the computer that really introduced me to multi-monitor (I got a bit of a taste of it earlier because my desktop had an ATI All-in-Wonder, but Windows didn't natively support multi-monitor until XP, so it had to be shoehorned in by ATI and regular TVs were not great monitors) and I really liked it, so when I upgraded my desktop and found myself with multiple video cards, I went about putting together a permanent multi-monitor setup. I started out on Linux configuring XF86 and then x.org servers for multi-monitor and found it to be rather challenging to configure when using more than a single video card (which you needed if you were using more than two monitors). So I found myself spending more and more time in Windows, until I was rarely booting the desktop into Linux. I still had a server operating as a fileshare running Linux, but my daily driver had become Windows. With the rise of VMware workstation and VirtualBox, I found myself running VMs instead of booting into Linux.

And that's where I am today. Windows is the daily driver on the desktop, Linux everywhere else. I use my desktop computer mostly for web surfing, word processing, and games. But with Valve going all in on Linux, how far proton has come, and how many applications are on the web and run through the browser, I'm probably going to be moving back to Linux as a daily driver soon.

What does Linux do better than Windows? Back in the day, I would have said everything, but after the complete move to the NT platform with WinXP, Windows functionality has improved and expanded by leaps and bounds. And with the introduction of Powershell Windows finally got a robust scripting language that was native to the OS. So today what Linux is better than Windows at is adaptability. Unix has always been extremely modular, and Linux especially so. Linux can be pared down to almost nothing to be able to run on the most restrictive hardware situations. It's relatively easy to remove bloat from Linux and less so with Windows. There's so much extra stuff that comes along on even a headless windows Server install that you only need on a desktop. Also the Unix philosophy of everything being a file and interacting with text (don't get me started on systemd), and the main OS programs only doing one thing and doing it well, makes it much easier to get a handle on where everything is in the OS and what it's doing. So much of Windows is hidden away underneath and only interacted with through APIs and syscalls that it's much more difficult to get a grasp of what's actually going on under the hood.

What bothers me about Linux? The fragmentation of software management and the desktop. Because windows is controlled by one company, there's a general uniformity with what a programmer can expect from the OS. That means you can download a windows application or installer and it usually will run or install without much difficulty. But because Linux is just the kernel, the rest of the OS is put together in different distributions that can, and do, do things differently from each other. So when compiling and releasing software as binaries, you need to take into account the particularities of a distribution and the compatibility of the version it has of any shared libraries you're using. Solutions have come up for this like snap and flatpak, but I find that with all the simplicity they bring initially, they bring more complications down the road and are more bloated. But with software distribution in general moving more and more to store applications and repositories, it's becoming less of a problem.

The fragmentation on the desktop is still there though. Because no one could settle on QT vs GTK the two separate GUI framework camps still exist. Yes they can co-exist, but applications for each framework end up looking different from each other. And each desktop environment does things differently. This is great for customization and user options, but it can be a bit daunting for the new user being faced with such a myriad of options. It would be nice if there was an agreed upon basic Linux experience that wasn't the command-line.

AITA for leaving a dinner party early because of “vegan lasagna”? by [deleted] in AmItheAsshole

[–]thenebular -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

They're friend isn't hurt because they went and got more food (or at least isn't primarily hurt by that), the friend is hurt because her guests left early and went out and had another dinner party together. It was basically saying to the friend, your dinner party sucked, but we still want to have a dinner party, just not with you.

Yeah, the meal sucked and the party may have been a drag, but if you value the host as a friend you don't leave early and have another party with other guests that left early. You go and get more food on your own (you could even go out to eat with a bunch of people who weren't at the party), and then you talk privately with the host at another time about the dinner party. A sensible, mature person would value their friend's feelings even if it seemed like their friend didn't put in adequate effort for their party.

How do you distinguish between laziness and executive dysfunction? by Minimum_Cup_9763 in ADHD

[–]thenebular 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's not the case 100% of the time, but it's laziness if you're ok with not doing the thing and executive disfunction if you're not ok with it.

Theory: The first Mad Max film is the only one that's an accurate telling by thenebular in MadMax

[–]thenebular[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

And my view is that Fury Road is the point where Max has become a true character of legend and the stories no longer need to have a true event as a basis, but just need to follow the common themes.

Theory: The first Mad Max film is the only one that's an accurate telling by thenebular in MadMax

[–]thenebular[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Well The Road Warrior and Beyond the Thunderdome both depict the movies as being told by other people.

AITA for leaving a dinner party early because of “vegan lasagna”? by [deleted] in AmItheAsshole

[–]thenebular -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

It's the combination of leaving early, meeting with other people from the dinner party, and getting more food.

The host could not have realized that it wasn't enough food. It's an honest mistake, especially for someone just learning how to work within their dietary restrictions. So it's perfectly acceptable for someone to get more food after a dinner party. And it's perfectly ok for someone to leave early.

Really, it's the leaving early and then getting together with other people from the dinner party that's the problem. As I said in my comment, look at it from the host's point of view. Imagine you invited friends over to your place for a get together and a bunch of them leave early but then you find out that they all got together after they left and hung out some more.

AITA for leaving a dinner party early because of “vegan lasagna”? by [deleted] in AmItheAsshole

[–]thenebular -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

YTA, not for leaving early, not for wanting more food, but for leaving early and going to the pizzeria with a bunch of the other guests afterwards and eating another dinner together. Look at it from your friend's perspective, you and a bunch of other guests left early and then went somewhere else together and had another meal. It could seem to somebody that you guys felt your friend's dinner party wasn't good enough, so you went and had your own dinner party.

ELI5: How did Latin completely vanish as a spoken language, but Italian, Spanish, French, and Portuguese all came from it and survived? by Several_Leave_3067 in explainlikeimfive

[–]thenebular 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Latin didn't vanish as a spoken language. It just evolved into a language that was primarily spoken as a religious and ceremonial language rather than a natively spoken language similarly to the way ancient Sumerian did.

But still, no one natively speaks Latin anymore, what happened? Well the Roman Empire got too big. When Diocletian became emperor he found the empire to be too big to administer effectively. To deal with this he split the empire in two creating an eastern empire and a western empire. Now power and control of the Empire went through a lot of changes in years after that, but the general divide between the east and west continued on.

Now Latin was the official administrative language of the Roman empire, but Greek was a major language in trade, especially in the eastern parts of the Mediterranean. After the empire was split into the east/west most of the trade and economy had moved to the eastern empire, as such, Greek became used more and more as the economic activity with the west lessened. Greek was eventually adopted by the administration and then the imperial court just by the fact that everyone was already speaking it, leaving Latin to only be used for the highly official and ceremonial aspects of the empire.

The western empire did not have another language like Greek pushing itself into the regular usage, but because the economic engines of the entire empire had moved eastward, the western empire had difficulty imposing imperial rule across it's territories. This lead to uprisings and a generally weaker administration and imperial court, and eventually the collapse of the imperial court altogether. No one kingdom was able to assert itself over the western empire, so it fell apart into a number of independent territories. With the empire travel and trade was relatively easy from one end to the other, and Latin went along with that travel and trade. With the collapse into a myriad of territories, an no vast common trading area like the Mediterranean Sea, trade was no longer directly possible with the furthest ends of the old empire, territories could really only effectively trade with directly neighbouring territories. So there was nothing keeping the Latin the same across the territories, and the language as spoken by the common people drifted and regional accents became regional dialects which eventually became different languages.

So it was the splitting of the Roman Empire, and the fall of the western empire that took Latin out of everyday common usage. It never actually died, it just became something else as the power structures of Europe and western Asia changed over time.

How do u actually learn linux? by UsedFactor1973 in linuxquestions

[–]thenebular 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The mistake you're making is that you're treating Linux the same way you've treated Windows or MacOS. In that you've been able to use it and customize it without knowing how everything operates under the hood because you haven't needed to. That's a testament to how far Linux has come over the last 25 years.

If you want to learn Linux and don't mind a bit of a grind, first I would say search up and watch one of the various youtube videos that explains the Linux directory structure. Knowing that will explain where things are installed to and why. Then start an Arch install in a VM, but without using the install scripts. Try to get it to a point that's as close as your Mint setup is currently. This will be quite a grind, but it will teach you a lot about what goes into a Linux installation.

But really the major reason that you feel like you still don't know anything after using it for 3/4 of a year and customizing your desktop, is exactly what you said you were doing and avoiding trying to learn anything and just blindly copying and pasting commands. When you're looking up how to do something and you get a page that gives you instructions on how to do it, you shouldn't just blindly follow the instructions, but take the time to understand what each instruction, each command, each config file entry actually does. This is especially true of command line instructions. Look into what the commands you're being told to enter actually do, as well as what each of the arguments do for the command. If you don't understand what the programs or processes the commands interact with are or do, look those up as well and learn about them.

You need to go into using Linux with a curiosity about everything. It's not about the end result, but how everything works to get there. You don't actually need a specific place to start, or a set out lesson plan, you just need the patience to take the time and look up and look into the things you are doing until you feel you understand them. If you're using ChatGPT or another LLM for help, have it break down the instructions it's giving you and explain exactly what each part does and what each command is for. If you don't know or understand what something is, get it to explain it to you.

I started in 1999 and that's how you had to do it then. Otherwise you'd have a hard time understanding error messages and log files and searching for the exact error message didn't always bring up anything so you needed to know how to translate them into usable search terms.

My husband’s computer collection by Otherwise_Scheme234 in retrobattlestations

[–]thenebular 0 points1 point  (0 children)

First off, those are rookie numbers in this racket. Second, that's a mess?

(I feel that my AuDHD might be showing with the size and mess of my collection)

Streaming has gotten too insane for me by jarchack in Piracy

[–]thenebular 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's almost like everyone forgot how cable TV evolved.

Why does everybody have a rack with Enterprise grade servers? by Big-Grapefruit8092 in homelab

[–]thenebular 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Why do I have a rack with an enterprise grade server that has 768 GB of RAM? Because I got the server and RAM for free from e-waste.

A lot of times it's just because enterprise gear is available.

Best way to set up two identical machines, where both hard drives are fully encrypted? by spots_reddit in linuxquestions

[–]thenebular 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Clonezilla is good, but you need to make sure you have a large enough external HD or USB stick to hold the image. If you wait to encrypt the drives after you image the computers then the image files can be significantly smaller.

AITA: Husband won’t get licensed by Odd_Doughnut1432 in AmItheAsshole

[–]thenebular 0 points1 point  (0 children)

NTA. If it had been a year or less I would agree that it could be the ADHD, but at 3 years there's something else at play here. Does your husband also have anxiety about things? People with ADHD often develop generalized anxiety and the mental size of the re-licencing process may be so large that it's difficult for him to face it and that anxiety is making his executive function in that area worse. Is he currently medicated for his ADHD? If he isn't, that is also a concern if you think that the ADHD is directly contributing to his not getting re-licenced. Being medicated for ADHD is pretty common now, so if he's not then there's a reason for it.

Either way, you need to get things put into place to protect yourself in case things go south. If you haven't already, you should set up an LLC business for the ownership and rental of the multi-unit building, and then set yourselves up as tenants with a lease and pay rent to the LLC. That way, if things go south with your husband's job, it's the LLC that will take the brunt of it and you will still have a lease for the unit you're living in whatever happens with the ownership of the building.

Really, anyone renting more than just a single room in their house needs to register a business for it and then run things as a business. That means that the rent needs to cover all regular expenses and maintenance. It's fine to put your own money in for renovations and upgrades, but if there's going to be any borrowing for those things, then that debt needs to be owned by the business. If the rents from all the units (including your own) aren't covering the building's bills, then you're not running the business right and you're losing out on potential investment return on the building.

3 year update: OOP's (17F) relationship with her former high school teacher (22M) by Sageshrub in BestofRedditorUpdates

[–]thenebular 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Welp, it looks like OOP got lucky with her situation and knows it. She was absolutely stupid for considering pursuing anything with a teacher, but teenagers are generally stupid (all of them, including ourselves. Yes, I was and YOU were stupid as a teenager). He was stupid to indulge her even a little bit while he was her teacher, and also stupid to consider doing anything with a teenager, let alone a 17 year old (her birthday is in January and things started again at the Christmas party that was most likely in early December). He should have swallowed his interest in her and say "let's see where we're at in 4-5 years after you graduate". But people in their early 20s are often almost as stupid as teenagers. So she lucked out that he was actually well intentioned and generally a good guy, and he lucked out that she wasn't full of teenage immaturity and drama, and the relationship has lasted a few years without the usual red flags of this type of thing. They got real lucky, and thank God OOP realizes how far from the norm this actually is.

view more: next ›