I always thought that the idea that "revealed preferences" are preferences, discounts that people often make decisions they would rather not. It's like the whole idea that if you're on a diet, it's easier to not have junk food in the house to begin with than to have junk food and not eat more than your target amount. Are you saying these people want to put on weight? Or is it just they've been put in a situation that defeats their impulse control?
I feel a lot of the "revealed preference" stuff in advertising is similar in advertisers finding that if they get past the easier barriers that users put in place, then really it's easier to sell them stuff that at a higher level the users do not want.
One example I like to use is schadenfreude. The emotion makes us feel good and bad at the same time: it's pleasurable but in an icky way. So should social media algorithms serve schadenfreude? Should algorithms maximize for pleasure (show it) or for some kind of "higher self" (don't show it). If they maximize for "higher self" then which designer gets to choose what that means?
I think there’s one group of people who consider preserving the physical dimensions important that like the macOS approach. For me, if a window is across multiple displays then it’s already broken up and I’m not too bothered about that. What I care about is getting application UI to a reasonable size without blurring. MacOS doesn’t do that.
Actually, the default in MacOS is that the window is only on one monitor, and its the monitor where the cursor was when you last moved the window, so you might have a window appearing invisible because you dragged it near the corner and some sliver ended on another monitor.
Look at this complicated tinkering MacOS makes you do for something as simple as spanning windows across monitors! https://www.arzopa.com/blogs/guide/how-to-make-a-window-span... (OK this last part is slightly facetious but Linux gets dinged for having to go into menus because the writer wants something to work the way it does in on other operating systems the whole time)
MMOs are actually fine. WoW, FFXIV, RuneScape, all work great on Linux. They’re not really games that rely on hidden information, are not pvp first and need to simulate stuff on the server anyway, so can verify moves are valid there.
It’s the competitive progression shooters and ranked esports games that go in for the restrictive anti-cheat
Even within competitive shooters there’s still plenty that run great on Linux. 90% of my time spent gaming is on Overwatch or CS2, and I’ve found that both ran significantly better on my Debian 13 installation than they ever did on Win11.
And it's worth noting that CS2 is still the most played game on Steam. It has double the players of the second most played game, Dota 2, which also works on Linux. And that has double the player base of the number 3 game, Arc Raiders, which also works great on Linux.
The idea that you'll be missing out is ill founded. Yes, there are some games that won't work. PUBG, Bongo Cat, Rust[0], and EA Sports FC 26 are the ones on the top 10 multiplayer list. But it's also not like you don't have plenty of massively popular games to choose from.
I'll even say don't switch to Linux, just stop playing these abusive games. Honestly, if you're unwilling to change OSes but willing to do this then people that want to jump ship can. We all win from this behavior. Even you as it discourages Windows from shoving in more junk and discourages publishers like EA from shoving in massive security vulnerabilities like rootkits. I mean we've all seen how glitchy many AAA games are, you really think their other software isn't going to be just as unpolished and bug ridden?
> Having very frequent updates to bleeding edge software versions, often requiring manual intervention is not "stable". An arch upgrade may, without warning, replace your config files and update software to versions incompatible with the previous.
12 in the last year if you used all the software (I don’t many people are running dovecot and zabbix), so probably actually like 3 for most users: https://archlinux.org/
That’s not too dissimilar from what you’d get running stable releases of Ubuntu or Windows. And of course plenty of windows software will auto upgrade itself in potentially undesired ways, windows users just don’t blame the OS for that
I don't just mean the types of manual intervention mentioned in the news. ArchLinux ships bleeding edge software to users with very little downstream changes. ArchLinux also replaces config files when upgrading. This is inherently different behavior from stable release distributions like Ubuntu.
ArchLinux is not an operating system where you can do an unattended upgrade and forget about it. That's not "bad" or "good", that's just a design choice.
Arch replaces _unmodified_ config files when changing. It’s not an uncommon behaviour in software to update defaults to the new defaults.
If you have a modified config file, it puts the new default one in a .pacnew file for you to compare, which seems strictly better to just deleting the new default one.
Huh you're right, I must've confused myself by removing/installing instead of upgrading recently.
Anyway I think the discussion boils down to semantics. ArchLinux is not "unstable" in the sense that it is prone to breaking. But it also delivers none of the stability promises that stable release distros or rolling release distros with snapshotting and testing like OpenSUSE Tumbleweed deliver. To call ArchLinux stable would make every distribution stable, and the word would lose all meaning.
Most distributions promise that an upgrade always results in a working system. Instead moving the manual maintenance to major release upgrades.
Not saying you didn’t experience this, but I’ve definitely run StarCraft 2 in the past, and I play Anno 1800 regularly fine (thanks to the mods I’ve been playing it’s even got 50% more sessions than the base game)
Did multiplayer LAN work in Anno 1800 for you out of the box, or did you make adjustments? I couldn't figure out how to get it to work.
StarCraft 2 worked, oddly enough, run from Steam as an external program. (Lots of search results tried to get me to use Lutris/bottles, but I couldn't get it to work consistently under Lutris.)
Ah yes that's what I meant. But yes unfortunately I could not figure out how to get multiplayer to connect. No idea why or how to troubleshoot and fix.
The soft power is partly based on the belief that the systems it’s built will constrain the US into acting reasonably (at least from the west’s perspective). The Greenland thing was not shut down on the US side hard enough and that has shattered that. Now Europe has to contend with the fact that the US system won’t rein in a president that goes too far, and so it basically has to be treated like the absolute dictatorships with all the risks of a mad king that goes with that
Does not mean too much coming from Europe when the EU wants to militarize and the institution is closer to absolute dictatorship than democracy. Similar to Canada and Europe talking about colonizing the world with the US yet Greenland is an issue lol.
I should’ve also said that like the US, Europe, Canada, Australia, Israel are very very racist, chauvinist, exceptionalist. That benefits US hegemony.
Something also not brought up much is how many people have colonized minds around the world. Colonized minds don’t largely change because of a temporary brash leader.
I've had the opposite experience, it's been a long time listening to people going "It's really good now" before it developed to a permutation that was actually worth the time to use it.
ChatGPT 3.5/4 (2023-2024): The chat interface was verbose and clunky and it was just... wrong... like 70+% of the time. Not worth using.
CoPilot autocomplete and Gitlab Duo and Junie (late 2024-early 2025): Wayyy too aggressive at guessing exactly what I wasn't doing and hijacked my tab complete when pre-LLM type-tetris autocomplete was just more reliable.
Copilot Edit/early Cursor (early 2025): Ok, I can sort of see uses here but god is picking the right files all the time such a pain as it really means I need to have figured out what I wanted to do in such detail already that what was even the point? Also the models at that time just quickly descended into incoherency after like three prompts, if it went off track good luck ever correcting it.
Copilot Agent mode / Cursor (late 2025): Ok, great, if the scope is narrowly scoped, and I'm either going to write the tests for it or it's refactoring existing code it could do something. Like something mechanical like the library has a migration where we need to replace the use of methods A/B/C and replace them with a different combination of X/Y/Z. great, it can do that. Or like CRUD controller #341. I mean, sure, if my boss is going to pay for it, but not life changing.
Zed Agent mode / Cursor agent mode / Claude code (early 2026): Finally something where I can like describe the architecture and requirements of a feature, let it code, review that code, give it written instructions on how to clean it up / refactor / missing tests, and iterate.
But that was like 2 years of "really it's better and revolutionary now" before it actually got there. Now maybe in some languages or problem domains, it was useful for people earlier but I can understand people who don't care about "but it works now" when they're hearing it for the sixth time.
And I mean, what one hand gives the other takes away. I have a decent amount of new work dealing with MRs from my coworkers where they just grabbed the requirements from a stakeholder, shoved it into Claude or Cursor and it passed the existing tests and it's shipped without much understanding. When they wrote them themselves, they tested it more and were more prepared to support it in production...
Which is equal parts praise and damnation. Claude Code does do a lot of nice things that people just kind of don't bother for time cost / reward when writing TUIs that they've probably only done because they're using AI heavily, but equally it has a lot of underbaked edges (like accidentally shadowing the user's shell configuration when it tries to install terminal bindings for shift-enter even though the terminal it's configuring already sends a distinct shift-enter result), and bugs (have you ever noticed it just stop, unfinished?).
I feel a lot of the "revealed preference" stuff in advertising is similar in advertisers finding that if they get past the easier barriers that users put in place, then really it's easier to sell them stuff that at a higher level the users do not want.
reply