it’s an alt-space launcher.
you press alt+space, a little box pops up in the centre of the screen and works the way the search box in the start menu is supposed to work.
No ads, no internet search results, just application and file search, perhaps some cheeky addition or multiplication.
Holy shit powertotys run is the one of the only reasons i can tolerate windows 11 on a works laptop.
Local admin to go digging through group policy settings, just so i don’t have to scroll past 2 pages of ads and internet results in the start menu to open fucking “settings”?
They can absolutely fuck right off with that.
i think we are mostly in agreement, though I’ll address a couple points of contention on my side.
I think likening racism to political centrism, which is, again, what you are agreeing with, is not an apt comparison. You’re agreeing with a commenter above that said “the middle ground between racism and not racism is 50% racism”
I wasn’t necessarily trying to equate racism with political centrism, i was using that comment as an example of how the idea of ‘centrism’ isn’t always a viable or practical one.
it could just as easily have been “The middle ground between wet and dry is 50% wet”.
Then if you happen to be a centrist, if you happen to be in the middle, as I’ve met many centrists, they exist. And again, it is probably the most viable of all of the political ideologies, if not for corruption and political manipulation to herd the population into either Democrat or Republican sides
But you can see that this reads " This would be the best option if it was possible, but it isn’t, currently " ?
I agree with the sentiment, though i disagree that the optimal location is the “centre” , as i said before.
And it seems you agree given the follow up about the partially siding with trump being ridiculous.
As i was saying before i don’t think centrism is a good label for what you are describing because it isn’t really the centre of anything, it’s some other thing on a whole spectrum of things.
I think that using the label “centrism” hurts any argument significantly more than it helps and coming up with some other , more accurate way of describing your position would greatly benefit any discussion around that area.
But labeling and categorising things is hard, especially in a concise and descriptive manner and as you say modern political conditioning tends towards thinking in rigid boxes.
As a complete aside (and a contrived , though i’d say accurate description):
In an effective two party system a vote that doesn’t correspond with either of the two sides is effectively a vote for the ultimate victor.
This isn’t a commentary on the politics of either side, i mean this as general statement on how voting would effectively work in that kind of system.
Assuming you agree with that point of view, how do you reconcile the potential ethical and moral outcomes of not voting at all ?
Genuine question, zero baiting.
Disliking politics and all the current political parties doesn’t fit the technical definition of a centrist.
It’s not that centrism can’t exist, it’s that it’s commonly used as a thin pretense to cover actual partisan leanings, usually right-wing (by the general global metric, not just the US one).
Additionally, abstinence isn’t commonly a good approach by which to assert a legitimately central stance. A lot of the time a legitimately central stance doesn’t exist in a practical sense.
As stated by a commenter above “The middleground between racism and not racism is 50% racism”.
I personally think the concept of “centrism” isn’'t viable, not because nuance and context can’t exist but because the “center” often isn’t a useful target.
nowhere in the history of language has “there should be such a thing” meant or even implied “making such a thing is easy”
I know its hyperbole but you can’t possible back that statement up.
if anything it implies the opposite.
It doesn’t, but i agree it didn’t really imply the difficulty was high either.
I wasn’t saying the reply was correct, i was stating the intended meaning (at least as i see it).
To answer to your original post, design platforms with version control exist.
Some use git under the hood, some don’t, most don’t require you to understand git to use them.
Hopefully that saves you some time as now you don’t have to build the platform from scratch.
Downsides for sure, but it does work.
So, benefit of the doubt time.
That’s some mental gymnastics in there but let’s see if we can get it.
So the reply isn’t actually suggesting you create the platform for designers, they are pointing out that there is a lot more to competent platform/software design than it seems, so try it yourself and find out.
If it turns out you do in fact have the answers, great, we now have the platform you described.
Chances are you’ll find out just how difficult it is to do what you are suggesting and realise that implying someone could “just” create a platform for designers isn’t particularly realistic.
and this is exactly my point, the definition of the word generally points directly to it being killing in a fashion that is unlawful which rests on the applicable law in the context.
Nation state soldiers killing enemy combatants doesn’t fit this description in most circumstances. (There are of course rules and exceptions etc etc)
I’m not arguing the morality, I’m arguing the factual definition and it’s the reason why i said the language causes it’s own issues.
i consider this specific example to also be an issue of language, which is in itself a construct.
Murder as a word has meaning based in law, which is another construct.
If you were to switch out “murder” for “killing” the outcome remains the same (cessation of life by another party) but the ethical and moral connotations are different.
Some people use murder when they mean killing and vice versa which adds a layer of complexity and confusion.
Though all of that could just be me venturing into pedant country.
If you put someone’s face in anything they didn’t consent to.
This isn’t porn specific and even if it was, almost everything is someone’s “thing”.
The examples fit irony i suppose but that’s a very broad assumption of nationality for it to apply to the comment you are replying to.
There could be people who are not American who also disagree with your approach.
Regardless, question answered, thank you.
Genuine question, what’s the irony here ?
Sure, when you reach a point that you don’t have better options to achieve the desired goal (for whatever metric you define as ‘better’) then killing is on the table by the sounds of it.
All we need now is an agreement on the threshold.
I’m assuming you’ll concede that individual killing comes before mass killing, in the hierarchy of options.
So, once this threshold is reached then, according to your logic, you are morally allowed to kill in defence ( and i assume pre-emptive defence, given the “They are won by stopping the enemy‘s ability to act.” statement ).
So going back to your original statement, it’s entirely possible to kill an individual and still believe in your definition of ‘believe in universal human rights.’ ?
Provided the correct conditions are met, ofc.
I saw the parts about the declaration of war, i was specifically looking for the part from which you pulled :
Once a war has started, killing is morally acceptable, not before.
Rights need to balanced against each other in practice of course.
So contradiction is possible as i have said and balance would require contextual interpretation, in practice.
Absolute statements such as :
Once a war has started, killing is morally acceptable, not before.
and
You don’t kill people for their ideological beliefs, but to stop their ability to act and remove them from power.
Can be contradictory, depending on context.
I wasn’t challenging your interpretation, though i do think it’s naive and idealistic to the point of impracticality, i was pointing out that your statements could be considered contradictory.
While I’m at it, i missed a false dichotomy as well :
Wars aren’t won by killing soldiers. They are won by stopping the enemy‘s ability to act.
Those things are not mutually exclusive.
You can find that in international humanitarian law.
That’s a large amount of text to sift through, if you could give me a hint to where it specifies moral authority before and after an official declaration of war i’d appreciate it.
Firstly, citation? because as i understand it “killing is morally acceptable in war” isn’t in the universal declaration of human rights.
Secondly, even if it was, there is no magic attribute of those declarations that makes them immune to contradiction.
That is a very strange and self-contradicting hill to die on.
As I’m sure you already know the proprietary part comes from the implementation and built in hardware support for said implementation, which AMD is not compatible with (not in any usable way at least)