I'll yet again remind you you're on a "year of the Wayland desktop" thread, which it seems you don't want.

Then you want Windows.

lol OK. The last version of Windows I booted on a machine of my own was Windows 95.

Linux is a collaborative effort, why are you suggesting they get a pass on the collaborative part?

They've been providing an amazing, industry leading F/OSS tool for 27 years, with a number of spinoffs, various compatibility things implemented in other libraries. That's pretty good collaboration. They'd do a much less good job if they instead had to piss around trying to get an absolute basic feature of all reasonable desktop systems working across a fragmented mess.

What isn't collaborative is yelling at people when you broke a feature everyone expects to work.

I won't.

Then why are you pissing and moaning on a thread about the year of the Wayland desktop?

That's not a Wayland thing.

Aaah there we go! The old "it's out of scope" argument.

Followed by:

They do NOT owe you support of your favorite piece

complaining at the user for wanting stuff to work.

You actually did both, I'm kinda impressed. Anyhow you are posting on a "year of the Wayland desktop" thread. And I'm thinking of a particular piece of software (ImageJ) which is currently maintained, very popular in many scientific circles and works perfectly on Windows, OSX and oh... what was the other system again?

Wait a moment it'll come to me... ... oh yes that was it X11! And X. But in some cases it (for good reasons) relies on window placement, something X doesn't offer.

Your solution is for the poor imageJ devs to figure out not how to get it working on Linux, or even Wayland and X, but X and Wayland/GNOME, Walyand/KDE, Walyand/whatever this desktop is and Wayland/sway and so on and so on and everything else.

I mean sure, but don't expect it to be the year of the Wayland desktop if your solution to stuff not working is to yell at users about the architectural details of Wayland, and then say that the devs should do 10x the amount of work and users should try and compete with a multibillion dollar company 1 on 1.

It's going to be another "year of the Wayland desktop being heavily pushed but mysteriously not getting as much traction as the Wayland fanboys expect and the wayland fanboys yelling at anyone who tells them why it's not as popular as they expect"

If X sucked as badly as its detractors claimed one would have thought that replacing it with something more functional would take less than the current 15 years, especially as work on X has more or less stalled for a decade.

But it's 2024 and Wayland still doesn't for example support window placement, unlike Windows, OSX and what was that? X11? Huh. I'm sure it's out of scope and anyway the user's fault for wanting it widely supported features that have niche but very important uses.

We've gone from "mechanism not policy" to "neither mechanism nor policy".

Plus anything beyond the basics is a crapshoot because there are three major semicompatible layers (wlroots, gnome, kde), so now automation has coupled into the window management scheme. It's like someone looked at the fragmentation of 90s era uni and said "hold my beer".

So... maybe.

Both Pons and Fleischman are working for the US Navy.

Given that Fleishman died 12 years ago, that's quite impressive. Almost as impressive as continuing to wok age 97, but not quite.

Pons relinquished his US citizenship in the late 90s and is now 80. He ain't working for the US Navy that's for sure.

Though it does not surprise me that having latched onto this crank drive after the crank EM drive, you're also a proponent of cold fusion. Any other fringe theories?

That's an extreme formulation. It does imply that certain efficiencies would be equivalent to perpetual motion

It does imply that exactly. Because whatever the N/W efficiency you can always crank v higher until you go net positive. Except of course there is an upper limit on v, namely c. You can work out the number of N/W required to break even at the speed of light. Turns out that's exactly the same number of newtons per watt you get for just blasting that many watts of photons out the back (photons have momentum).

So basically a drive that doesn't carry reaction mass can be no more efficient than a photon drive. That carries no reaction mass, but photons have momentum anyway, so it still conserves momentum. This is if you like a consequence of the mass/energy equivalence.

I mean sure... but bear in mind they use the word "propellantless" in their pitch, presumably to muddy the waters and confuse people who don't know physics but want to believe.

Unfortunately, too many people do not understand basic Physics and are willing to believe any and all crap, so this one will run a while, I expect.

It will.

Note how it's often the same people (angel'o'sphere) vociferously defending this one, just like he vociferously defended the EM drive. That seems to have finally petered out into a big old pile of nothingness and tumbleweeds. Perfect for the latest scamjet to fill the vacuum.

He claims a reactionless force that simply applies to an object. That works perfectly fine with my mass.

No they do not. They CONVERT chemical energy. Thermodynamics says that's not fundamentally different from converting other kinds of energy.All are equivalent.

"I already explained why, it's simple application of high school maths and physics."

I did.

Yes, I'm sure the lead scientist and co-founder of the NASA Electrostatics and Surface Physics Laboratory

So you can't find the error in my maths so you wish to try and beat me over the head with credentials.

who has nearly 900 citations

Ooh I win, I have over 9000 (actually more still but I like the meme).

when really he should have called you to find out about high school physics he missed while earning his PhD in... physics.

Honestly? Yeah he should have done!

So what makes you sure there is nothing reacted against in a different propellantless drive?

Here's the maths:

https://science.slashdot.org/c...

that only assumes the claim, that is it produces a force independent of speed. Nothing in the maths prevents the mechanism being pushing off something invisible. The independent of speed is kind of key because if it depends on speed relative to that unknown background stuff, then the implication is that there is a global rest frame, which also overturns all of physics pretty much. Note they are not claiming speed dependence relative to a global rest frame.

No it's not "whoosh", that implies you told a joke which I missed the punch line of. You fundamentally not understanding what hyperbole is has its own humerus merits for sure, but for a whoosh you need to be in on the joke, not part of it. Plus you also don't personally own the definition of "hellscape" which, since hell doesn't exist and no one knows what it looks like anyway is pretty much by definition a term of hyperbole.

You are assuming momentum is not conserved

Based on TFS, and TFA, that's a fair inference.

"Motion in space can be accomplished without thrust or external forces."

You need a curved spacetime for that, significantly curved on the scale of the object, to the point where you can exploit the somewhat ambiguous nature of centre of mass on curved manifolds. Near a small black hole might do. Earth or this solar system won't.

And they're not talking about that.

Again, WHOOOOOOOOOOOSH. He made shit up as I seriously doubt he has worked in a hellscape as a basis of comparison. I doubt he's worked at Google or Microsoft either. What he describes is what happens at MOST companies. The difference is I acknowledge everything I said was made up while you excuse his dishonesty as "hyperbole", Puppy murderer.

You commenters defending TikTok do realize that TikTok is BANNED in China right? RIGHT?? It's sole purpose is disruption and influence by a foreign government adversary. Good riddance to it.