Love the explainer to the meme.

Keep up the good work!

Nah, actually experienced it with random internal cards and decided to play it safe.

Can’t say for all internal sound cards though, there can absolutely be ones that don’t have the issue.

:D

Based.

And yes, KDE Connect ftw

Seen this post over and over. This is not a new study at that point

G5 is a USB card. And I’d argue that’s the best approach, as sound signal being analog is highly susceptible to interference, and insides of a computer have a lot of that.

No idea honestly :D

The modern G5 runs perfectly alright though.

Still running Creative SoundBlasterX G5

Amazing card, and the series is very much alive

Depends on the definition of “wasting”

There’s always a way to spend less water, even less than you currently do.

But normally spending more water translates to comfort, as well as better washing.

Also, Flatpak

As containers are isolated - it’s mostly a security issue for the container itself. It may become an issue, though, if the container is allowed to freely interact with filesystem, for example.

Apps like Flatseal allow you to easily control such variables using a GUI instead of tinkering in the terminal.

Should be locked from applications. Only fairies will pass!

Sometimes people just get along so well it seems magical, and they actually both fall for each other.

This is rare, but it happens, and it’s something to treasure, something people are insanely happy and in love years into their marriages, still trying to believe their luck.

And if you’re looking for the one, you may opt not to look for “hoes” or treating your partner like that.

Flashing Lenovo A6000 failed when I did it about a year ago.

Bricked the phone, didn’t manage to fix it even with Qualcomm tools.

Wasn’t worth pursuing further to me back then. Would love to know if someone succeeded!

The placebo effect is a simple psychological phenomenon affecting only the human body itself (i.e. not bringing changes to the world outside the body itself, which is literally directly regulated by the nervous system), and requiring a total of zero supernatural things.

It’s just the interaction of the nervous system with various organs of the body. Aside from placebo and nocebo, this may also lead to psychosomatic disorder, and long-term stress wear and tear. Certain expectations or stressors influence the way organs are regulated, which may lead to positive or negative outcomes depending on the context.

First, you jump to the conclusion that your mind really is a source of reality. That’s a big leap, and I don’t think you used Occam’s razor well here. Besides, this approach is wildly oversimplified, and shouldn’t be used as a proof in itself.

Second, at the time there is zero evidence of mind alteration bringing tangible change to the perceivable world. Spawn me a dragon, or teach me to spawn one, here, in this very proven plane of existence, and we’ll talk.

For now, there is no evidence I actually miss out on anything.

Moreover, from that point of view, there is no guarantee my brain even exists and is what I think with.

But that doesn’t matter for the substance of discussion, really. Whatever I perceive is the evidence of something that is real, as said evidence is repeatedly presented to my consciousness, following the rules. If my mind is the source of the reality, it doesn’t change the fact that said reality operates by certain rules that can be devised using evidence.

I think, therefore I exist, as Descartes said. My mind is real. And whatever is consistently presented to me, following certain rules, is very certainly real, too. Same can’t be said of dragons or magic, for example. There is no evidence - in the world or in my perception of it - for their existence, and I can’t rule them in solely based on the fact I made it up in my imagination.

If you’re lost in what I’m saying, try to spawn a dragon right next to you, in the world you perceive as physical, not in your imagination. Next, try to boil water in a kettle. See the difference? One never happens, unless you’re hallucinating, and the other always succeeds if you do everything correctly. The second, thereby, can be seen as a likely rule of the world’s functioning, a natural law, regardless of anything else.

I’m not doomsaying about anything. I only say that we shouldn’t reject that otherkin are physically people. You can treat them differently from a social perspective - as you probably should and as you do, but it doesn’t erase that they are physically human.

And honestly, it’s much less of a deal than you think it is. Society operates social categories, doctors and other people for whom it is important operate physical ones. The debate we currently have is really about defining those social categories.

You say you can effectively deal the otherkin’s body stuff - you do it exactly because you know they are physically human, and any body stuff they may have is directly corresponding to human anatomy and physiology.

What you essentially try to defend is the social side of it, the perception I have of these people. You want them to be socially treated differently from human - and I don’t mind that in a slightest.

I’m only saying you cannot impose a new physical reality in which bodies of otherkin are not human - they are human, that is alright and it doesn’t mean otherkin should be socially treated as humans. Socially, they are not.

But in that we delve further and further from the objective reality we talked about, because the entire field of social interactions is a construct, too. A useful and great one, the one I have no intention to reject - but a construct, and since you deeply care about that, I’m gonna highlight it again.

Gender itself is entirely a social construct. The reality, however, is that this construct exists in our interactions, and that we are unable to define it based on anything but self-assessment.

Still, if we switch back to the scope of the objective reality about humans themselves, gender is entirely social.

Objective reality operates the category of sex and couldn’t care less about whatever we created around it - including gender and gender roles.

Yes, but evidence suggests it is. There’s a large gap between confirmed evidence and a random guess or a fantasy, and ignoring it would be same as equating a soup with its picture.

Confirmed evidence is verifiable, meaning it can be reproduced again and again under the same conditions - and if we constantly get the same output under the same conditions, we may assume this is how the reality works. That’s the backbone of science, a thing that brought us from the wild and to the current point.

It would be weird to expect the sun not to rise tomorrow, or for water not to heat up inside the working kettle, or anything else. This just works every time, and as such, we can see our observations as practically objective.