Yeah, another example of this is Tom's Diner by AnnenMayKantereit, which ended up pretty popular in the US, at least in online circles, and the majority of their music is in German.
Carrot
joined 2 years ago
Apple claims that now, after initially denying that they throttled phones for years, and then only announcing that they actually were when they add a toggle to turn it off. Also, they settled a lawsuit paying over 100MM dollars, which shows that their actions were anti-consumer.
And sure, Samsung is equally as ass as Apple. That's why I don't use their phones, feel the need to defend their shitty actions, or pretend like they can be trusted when they promise they weren't fucking over their customers.
Here's my link to support what I've said, but I'd highly recommend you look into a situation a bit before starting an argument about it, it's just common courtesy.
I give my fax number to anything that asks me for a phone number. It's a valid number that can't recieve calls, meaning when my number is inevitably leaked/purchased by telemarketers, scammers, etc. I don't even notice.
My memory failed me, it was actually intentionally making your phone slower and less performant in phones of the previous generations: https://support.apple.com/en-us/101575
But the result is the same. Upgrade or we'll make your phone awful to use. In that statement, they are really trying to make it sound like it's a good thing for the user, but up until they started doing that, batteries not "supplying enough peak power" was never an issue, and isn't an issue on any android phone. I had friends with iPhones that were 5 years old that worked perfectly fine before the update, that basically became unusable after the software update.
I prefer the Johnny Cash version myself
Pretty sure in this case Apple straight up admitted it, that's pretty damning proof
Can confirm, this exists and it works even if the phone is turned off or runs out of battery midway through the wipe, I've tested it. I have no use for it personally, but it's pretty neat!
One thing about Linux: don't let people bully you over which distro you use. This isn't a competition, use what feels most natural to you. If Manjaro is too steep of a curve, start somewhere else. Not everyone needs to be running arch. If you want to use arch but want it easier, I had an easier time with endeavor os than with manjaro, but ymmv. If I were you, I'd use the easiest distro out there: mint. If you are a big gamer, PopOS has a lot of gaming support right out of the box, but these days if you are primarily on Steam then you shouldn't hit too many issues in any distro.
I am also mid transition, but haven't booted windows in over a year. I tried dual-access storage, and I think your best bet is to keep the two systems separate. There are ways to make it work, but they are not beginner friendly imo.
As for mods, it is really hit or miss. And kernel level anticheat is a blocker in Linux, so any games that require it will not be playable. But what I do is have a single-drive windows machine that has the software that doesn't have Linux support installed, and boot into it when I need it. But I've actually found linux-friendly replacements for all the stuff I personally use, and will probably never touch the windows system again.
Don't feel bad, office chairs are a big deal. Something you spend 8+ hours of your day in aught to be scrutinized and carefully chosen
In the top right of your internet browser, there should be a menu button. If you hit that, there should be a "Desktop Site" button. If you check that, the app prompt goes away. It's annoying that it's required, but at least you won't be locked out
Everyone downvoting you doesn't understand just how negatively their habbit affects other people. There are people with athsma and people allergic to cigarette smoke and people with a smoke sensitivity. All those people can potentially die from second hand smoke. And that's not even touching on people who hate having to breathe the smoke of someone else's cigarettes or people who don't like how a smoker's cigarette smell fills a room or a grocery store isle, despite how much effort they take to hide the smell.
Based on their reported numbers, DOGE has "saved" the US 55B so far. Based on actual receipts, it has "saved" 8B dollars.
Let's say they aren't lying, and they have in fact saved 55B in the last 4 months. Let's also say for the sake of the argument that they are somehow able to keep up this pace for the entirety of the 4 year term.
That would be 660B dollars. It sounds like a lot, right? 660B in 4 years. However, basing off of this year's budget, the military would have spent 3.2T dollars. This means we've only saved 20% of what the military spends in the same amount of time.
Currently, the DoD cannot account for 2.46T dollars. That means that doge will have "saved" only 26% of the DoD's spending discrepancy. Remember, these numbers are based on the savings that Doge claims but have not proven.
If we use the number that they actually have receipts for, (8B) and still assume they will somehow keep their pace for the full 4 year term, they will have saved 96B. That would mean that they will have saved 4% of the DoD's spending discrepancy, or 3% of the DoD's budget for those 4 years, or 11% of the DoD's yearly budget, which is actually expected to keep going up year over year.
Realistically, the amount of money "saved" by the DOGE will be somewhere between those two numbers, and given the track record of the government, as well as Musk, it's likely closer to the 8B than the 55B.
Sorry, that was a lot of numbers to throw out there all at once, but my point is this: DOGE is going after the wrong places to find wasted money in the government. Wouldn't it make more sense to cut spending for departments that have such a long track record of aggregiously overspending? Wouldn't it make more sense to cut funding from programs that would have less negative impact on the lives of normal US citizens?
Imagine that, instead of cutting all of these programs, ones that are helping the lives of millions of Americans, we instead gave the military somewhere between 80% and 97% of the money it was expecting, and had the exact same amount of savings of our taxes, while still putting money into the development of future generations.