What worked for me is Manjaro, Chromium, 1080p full screen. Smooth video, but I never managed smooth at 4k (which must be possible, because the PI 4 is capable of smooth 4k video in general). Seemed to be a fair bit of work happening in the pi video driver space, so things may be better now. Manjaro is a great distro, so I highly recommend this on pi. The pacman package manager and AUR are just fantastic.

The design goal, initially, was for sterilizing immunity. That didnâ(TM)t work out, but it doesnâ(TM)t mean it wasnâ(TM)t the goal.

It helps to actually read, although to be fair the article is terrible. The point of this study wasn't to demonstrate the reversal of the Flynn effect, that's been seen in many studies, it was to establish whether or not it's genetic or environmental. Based on the exact same decline when looking at families vs the general population, it rules out a genetic decline (i.e. the Idiocracy hypothesis). Good news really! The stupid people aren't outperforming the general population! Of course, looks like TV/internet something in the water, radiation, aliens, or something is making the general population dumber (probably combinations of things). Personally I think the upcoming generation is generally screwed with smartphones reducing parental facial interactivity. Still, will make it easier for the kids of those of us with a little self control.

It's a really good point.

This is great, thanks for posting.

Provided this is coupled with significant privacy and free speech reforms. Let's have accountability, but let people control their data and treat these public platforms as public spaces regardless of who owns the hardware.

Zero. That's the point. I'm paying to not worry; it's the farmers job to think about these things.

So any time you purchase anything you make sure that every element from every part of the supply chain is 100% sustainably, and ethically sourced? That you own nothing that every other person in the world can not access? That every single thing you do or consume could be scaled out to every single person on the planet?

A nobel endeavour if so; but somewhat arbitrary if you're just picking and choosing when it's convenient.

OK, your argument is filled with these pesky things like "facts" and "reasoned logical argument". But, as an ignorant layperson, putting stuff in my food that kills bugs seems like it could have the potential to cause me harm as well (history seems to suggest that much perceived as safe ends up not so safe) . And as a privileged westener with the ability to pay extra for the non sustainable "organic" food. Why wouldn't I?

Hey mate. I'm not sure you are entirely aware of this, but you come across as a bit nuts. I looked at your google plus thing (whatever it is, I'm not real social media savvy), and it just looks like you think every bit of science that's got an alternative hypothesis is both a) completely wrong, and b) trying to suppress any dissenting voice. I mean, tree ring dating, radiometric dating, evolution, the big bang, climate change, 9/11, electric universe, dark matter... I'm sure the list goes on. Everyone is wrong about everything. I'm sure all kinds of scientists are wrong about all kinds of things, but you're not stopping at just "these guys are possibly wrong", you carry on to "these guys are clearly wrong, have bad motives, and these other guys are the ones that are clearly right". Can't you see that is nuts? a) You can't possibly know if they are wrong without being an expert in the field itself and b) You can't possibly know that the other guys are right. And finally c) You can't possibly know the motives of the "consensus holders", and it seems a bit poor form to assume malicious intent. It's OK to not know stuff, and it's OK to form a contrarian opinion on a topic (dark matter just smells like a bodge to me, but I know nothing, so I stay silent), but to go on some sort of crusade from ignorance makes you look pretty foolish. "Even fools are thought wise if they keep silent, and discerning if they hold their tongues" Proverbs 17:28.

The poster of the links under discussion was mikael (484). He seems to be a generally thoughtful well measured poster. Not "Chris Reeve", who I assume is the person you have issue with.

I don't know enough about physics to know if there was any merit in mikael's comment that "electromagnetism" might be responsible for alignment (is it even worth considering?). Sadly the physicists only responded to the conspiracy guy, so no informative feedback. In my memory, Slashdot used to be different, but perhaps it was always thus.

So linking to "non journal" articles is now somehow a problem is it? This French CEA organisation looks legitimate and non-controversial. The arxiv link is from Dr. Elmo Tempel, who looks like a legitimate cosmologist. The futurism link is just talking about some research from Damien Hutsemékers "senior researcher at the FRS-FNRS in the “Extragalactic astrophysics and space observation” unit (AEOS) at ULg". So which link, exactly, did you find objectionable? The content in which of these articles was somehow "non-scientific"?

I repeat, not one of these links talks about electricity in space, or plasma filaments, or whatever it is that seems to upset everyone. They just appear to be talking about some kind of galactic rotational alignment that was unexpected. Which is interesting dammit! How is that not interesting? Who cares if it's :"laminar infall of gas from sheets to filaments" or really sneaky space monkeys?

They are scientific in the sense that they are about scientific phenomenon. You obviously didn't look at any of the links as none of them mention "electricity" "plasma" or any of the controversial stuff that seems to be getting everyone worked up. Just galaxy rotational alignment.

Which is interesting.

I'm not an "electric universe" supporter, or whatever this stupid argument is about. I just saw links to an interesting cosmic phenomenon, and went "interesting!". Apology?

All his links are scientific and very interesting. Pity it's not modded up.

Your response, however, is simply condescending and adds no value.

It's not really new this, what would be more helpful is if we could calculate an upper bound on a human lifespan based on the network size, damage/repair rates or what have you. Of course, being able to extend human life (if it's resource intensive), will lead to the mother of all inequality blow outs. At any rate replication is the only path to significant time span existence, and digital looks like the only way to do that with some preservation of an "I". It's time to relinquish your flesh!

I notice in a previous post you have written, that your day job is running a manufacturing plant. Well my day job is leading the technical group (development group) for the software products that you more than likely use to help you run your plant. I know what engineering is, because I used to be one, many of my friends are engineers, and my users are engineers.

So here's the thing. I'm not going to tell you how to do your job, but I think you may be making a mistake in your assumptions here. Software development is fundamentally different from the traditional engineering with which you would be familiar. I know this because I have done both.

Completely false. I have worked in both heavy and light documentation environments. Heavy waterfall style process as well as agile. The implementation is always the longest leg.

Do you count the code you use to help run your plant? If you use PLCs or SCADA, have you thought about the companies that make that software? Chances are that I know, work with, or am the person who wrote that code. The kind of process that you are familiar with that happens inside your plant does not happen with the software on which you run your software! And it's not going to be consistent across the board from the one company either. What's required for the PLC, documentation wise, is very different from what is required in the SCADA.

My experience would suggest otherwise, its a funny old world.