True, but the desktop environment that they develop in-house is what I grade them on. Not the color themes and backgrounds that they put on desktop environments produced by other projects. You can install other desktop environments on any linux distro. Ubuntu only produces Unity.
anindefinitearticle
Some community and state colleges can be pretty cheap, and most schools offer night classes for those who work all day. A gen-ed like geology is likely to have such hours available for this community of night students, especially if you live in an area where geology is related to employment. Usually pretty cheap to take one class at a time through something like an Adult and Continuing Education program.
Valve’s use-case for choosing a gnu+linux distro is likely to be different from yours. Therefore, commentary about Valve’s needs and choices may or may not be relevant to your use-case.
If you’re new, I recommend mint. Because of ubuntu’s questionable choices at times vs debian’s steady hand, I recommend the debian edition of mint, LMDE. It’s a rolling distribution that requires fewer total reinstalls. Debian’s low-effort stability and security works for nearly all use-cases. Mint adds user-friendly settings, updates, and package management.
Cinnamon is mint’s desktop environment, what they add on top of ubuntu or debian. Like xfce, it’s lighter-weight and more responsive than plasma or gnome on lower-end or aging hardware, but it’s prettier than xfce without rice. Although if you wanna rice and make it pretty, check out a tiling window manager.
Let Valve handle the complex stuff and hire employees to stress-test the latest packages in Arch and just use what they package for you in proton. Start with a debian derivative. If you start wanting to tinker around because you’re getting comfortable, or for some reason desperately need a newer version of a package, you can try software from other package management schemes like guix or flatpak that run on top of your stable debian system.
When you’re comfortable with using the command line tools and managing the gnu operating system, you can try a more command-line centered and manually assisted distros like arch and gentoo
Try switching to different versions of your graphics driver and/or kernel. Nvidia cards get really finicky about the version matchups, especially as they age. Try different combinations of the versions that are available via pacman, and maybe it’ll work. You may need to start keeping an eye on updates to your kernel and graphics driver to see if a new update fixes your issue. Welcome to life with an nvidia card. I bought an nvidia card once in 2013. By 2016 I had to start playing this game on upgrades. At one point, the graphics driver was causing kernel panics until I downgraded both and waited a few months. Very happy with AMD.
The CLI has many advantages over a gui. For one, actions are reific, repeatable, and scriptable. This saves time as you can reuse previous commands and edit them appropriately for the current situation. This makes it easy to look back and verify what you have done. The command line is also a much more stable interface. GUIs change all the time and it’s hard to remember where things might be located. The structure of the gnu operating system accessed via the command line facilitates the discovery of installed commands/programs and documentation. You can record these actions once and repeat them on many machines. You can script common activities (eg bulk file renaming) that make file and data management easier.
I don’t know the anime either, but the steam logo is walking away from the debian logo and then staring into the eyes of the arch logo. OP is saying that valve made the right choice by ditching debian (I thought they were using ubuntu, but that’s just a debian derivative with a bad UI on top) for arch as the basis for steamOS. For a gaming platform, I agree. You want the latest updates and software versions for gaming purposes (and proton/wine purposes), and they can hire employees to ensure they have tackled arch’s bleeding-edge instabilities before rolling the updates out to the general population.
I’m sorry, but even in scientific spaces, that’s pretty common for phase 1. That’s why the communication and refinement phase is so important. Biased humans produced biased results. The best way to mitigate is to test it against differently-biased humans. That’s why diversity of thought and ideas is so important in any scientific subfield.
Teaching the public to engage in phase 2 research means teaching the public to engage in constructive discussion and consensus building, as well as to challenge their own ideas and the ideas of people around them. I don’t think it will be easy, but I do believe that educating on phase 2 research is the ideal solution.
Ok, but there are three main phases of research.
Phase 1 is what you are describing as “do your own research”. You formulate a hypothesis and you collect references that together seem to support it.
That’s an important step! And it comes easily to most humans. But it’s important to keep going. However, it’s also important to understand why most people don’t. Phase 1 research is as far as we teach in high school. “Write a paper and cite your sources, find sources that support your argument.” We don’t teach our population to engage in any further steps of research.
Phase 2 is engaging in an open discussion about the topic with other people who have researched it. This can happen through literature/publication (publication of phase 1 research was originally the purpose of publishing a “letter” instead of a “paper”, but now letters are used for basically everything), a journal club, a research group, a conference… Share your idea and its justifications with the broader community, who study other aspects of that topic. They may have a perspective that contradicts your hypothesis (scenario A) or that develops it (scenario B).
Phase 3A is to come up with experimental tests between the various hypotheses from various perspectives encountered in 2, and publish a paper to share the result.
Phase 3B is to then test the corollary hypotheses encountered in 2, and publish a paper to share the result.
We shouldn’t discourage phase 1 research. It’s super important, and it’s a good idea to encourage our populace to practice and engage with it. However, the nuance is that we also need to be clear that a phase 1 result is not to be given the same level of trust as a phase 3 result. Again, I think the problem comes back to our public education system. We only ever encounter phase 1.
I think the problem is also a matter of accessibility. The internet has made performing phase 1 research accessible to all! This has flooded the body of ideas accepted by the public with phase 1 results that have not been properly tested. It’s how we were all taught in high school.
The problem is that people don’t understand that there is a next phase. That next phase is also extremely inaccessible to most people, compared to using the internet for phase 1 research. Phase 2 is the communication phase. Phase 2 is inaccessible to most people who aren’t researchers in the field. Most of the conversation between scientists in phase 2 is considered private, and needs to stay that way for the system to work. Most people don’t have access to these private networks of social interaction, and therefore have never engaged in a phase 2 research interaction. The topics being discussed are also very jargony and technical and full of complex concepts that are difficult to traverse for a novice, adding another accessibility barrier.
We need to start getting our population to practice all three phases of research, not just phase 1 which they got practice at in high school. We need to first teach phase 2, which is writing, presenting, discussing, and collaboratively refining ideas.
Busch Gardens if you want a theme park that’s also a zoo and botanical garden and has a lot of alcohol because its purpose is to advertise Anhauser Busch beers.
EDIT: Kids are allowed, but the alcoholic attractions are designed for adults.
We do not have longitudinal studies of how a very new drug, puberty blockers, impacts later development in adulthood. The drugs haven’t been around for long enough to test it. Makes sense that we should be cautious.