Yeah honestly, while I do think that part of the issue with Linux popularity is that it doesn’t have some big corporate marketing sponsor, I truly believe that the bigger part of it is just the absolute roughness of the user experience and the still dominant mentality of wanting it to be some kind of prestige flex club. Linux needs to become as brain dead simple and out of the box usable as iOS or Windows. Linux folks love to say that it already is. It isn’t. I use Linux, and I really like it. But if you think it’s as straightforward as the big two, you’re lost in the sauce. You’re like the math professor who says “Come on guys double integrals are NOT that complicated, it’s basically just addition and multiplication. Don’t you know how to add and multiply?”

The big problem is that the intersection of people who are not lost in the sauce and who want to and are capable of actively making contributions to Linux, is very very small.

I respect where you’re coming from, But the mentality of Linux users to say “skill issue” in these situations is the #1 reason why Linux isn’t more adopted. Is it a skill issue on the user’s end or is it a skill issue on the Linux developers’ end? Maybe they should make more automatically functional out of the box software. Doesn’t feel too nice to be told that does it?

Not everyone has time to become skilled in computing. Additionally, Linux users are so deep in the computing rabbit hole that they don’t even appreciate how deep in it they really are. What strikes them as basic or fundamental is really confusing for a lot of people.

It is not acceptable to just blame the user and say that the problem is that the user is a fool. That could maybe be a reasonable standpoint if 99% of people were using the software without issue, but we all know that isn’t the case with Linux.

Someone wants to boot up their computer and get on Wi-Fi and play games with their updated drivers. Windows provides that out of the box, without them needing to do anything. That is factually a better experience than needing to screw around reading a bunch of guides and forums and running commands that you don’t understand for potentially multiple hours. Blaming that on the user just means that the users continue to have a bad experience. If that’s the view the community wants to take, fine - But then don’t complain when the majority of people don’t want to use your thing.

Yeah lol I love the sentiment of this meme but the understanding of, and I don’t even want to call it economics… The understanding of the fundamental nature of scarcity, and human cooperation and collaboration, that this displays…is disappointing.

We could make the same meme about any organized exchange of human energy, even without any money.

"I spend 10 hours harvesting potatoes.

I give my neighbor the potatoes, saving him ten hours of work.

My neighbor uses his extra 10 hours to fix my roof."

This is just like…the literal nature of reality. Energy is transferred between different subsystems within a system, according to how much the subsystem is capable of demanding or receiving energy. This could be funnier if all the companies were owned by one larger company, but even then it wouldn’t be a particularly deep insight. That would be the same sort of thing as a family member gifting you $100 for your birthday and then you gift them $100 for their birthday later in the year. At the very first glance it seems circular and pointless, until you realize that you’re basically temporarily allocating additional resources to someone for them to use for a certain amount of time, and then reallocating them to someone else at a later point when you no longer need that surplus.

It’s actually quite reasonable as a principle. The fact that the particular instantiation of this principle in the case of AI technology may be fruitless and not socially beneficial is NOT an essential flaw of the principle but rather an incidental flaw in the principle’s actualization in this particular case.

Idunno if it counts as ageism when they’re talking about stupid behavior among people with minds that are factually, biologically, not finished developing. Same reason it isn’t ageist to say “ten year olds are not allowed to drive cars because they aren’t smart enough to do it responsibly”

University course lectures are still the best and you can find tons of them in YouTube in their entirety.

I enjoy how every misplaced accusation of something being le AI le SLOP ends up just backfiring against the claim that AI only makes objectively trash things that can always be distinguished from beautiful pure human-made art. If it’s plausible that AI could have made this, then it must be plausible for AI to make art as good as humans have. What’s even better is it doesn’t matter if you can correctly distinguish it 95% of the time. Even just one misclassification is enough to undermine the claim that AI only produces #slop. The sentiment of the claim could even be saved if people were willing to say that just X% of AI art is #slop, but this is unacceptable for the dogmatist’s needs, which will only settle for 100%.