It's difficult question. Assume 5k2k 40inch (U4021QW) vs 8K 32inch (almost same height); 5k2k is great aspect ratio for single monitor setup, but dpi is moderate. 8k 32inch is too much dpi for 200% HiDPI. 8k 40inch is sweet spot for 200% but it's too big for monitor. Maybe I'd take 8K 32inch and use with 250% HiDPI, if prices are same.
Where does FreeBSD excel then, because last time I checked all the widely known use cases were split about 50/50 serving and routing, with a side of Playstation.
Re: Linux gaming: Sorry, I couldn't hear you over the sound of the MCC playing on my Linux box. And Ori. And Stardew, RoR2, Everspace, XCOM2, SWTOR, Hades, DST, Hollow Knight, FTL, Terraria, Human Fall Flat, Portal 1/2, and a variety of other games.
As far as anticheat is concerned, that's actively being worked on by Valve and the largest stake holders.
Literally none that I've tried have given me problems.
But to the working games, let me add: Overwatch, League of Legends, Anything from GBA/GB/NES/SNES/DS/OtherRetroSystems, Starcraft. Oh, and Minecraft of course.
I'm sure I can come up with more.
Edit: One steam library checking later - and I'll note, this is stuff that I've actually played on Linux (and is also filtered by names I think people would recognize): Arma 3, Blitzkrieg 2, Pit People, Castle Crashers, BattleBlock Theater, Unturned, Invisible Inc., Baldurs Gate, Undertale, Speedrunners, Dota 2, Gary's Mod, Everspace, Raft, AoE 3.
This makes up the VAST majority of my steam library, none of which was purchased checking for Linux compatibility.
It's one thing to say that a specific game you want doesn't work, and quite another to say it in general doesn't work.
Edit again: Rocket League. That's it. That's the only one that I know of issues with, and I don't know if it even still has issues - I stopped playing when it required an Epic account.
Affirmative action biasedly lifts up minorities over others. It looks noble on the surface, but realistically creates more of the same problem.
When I applied to college, I (and all of my friends), knew that ticking any non-white ethnicity box on the application made you more likely to get accepted. I don't know that any of us did, but it was very well known that you could game the system this way.
It made acceptance into college less about your academic merit and more about your ethnicity (or ability to use ethnic bias to cheat the system) - aka, more racism.
Affirmative action is here for a reason. If there wasn't systemic racism in hiring, there would be no need for it.
What affirmative action is supposed to do is to ensure that your race isn't a determining factor in not getting hired for a job that you are qualified for.
The Rooney Rule in the NFL wouldn't need to be a thing if being a black coach in the NFL meant statistically you had a greater chance of getting fired or not being hired at all
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooney_Rule
What affirmative action is supposed to do is to ensure that your race isn't a determining factor in not getting hired for a job that you are qualified for.
No, that's wrong. If that were the goal, it would simply be made illegal to ask about race (or race-proxy) on college application forms.
Affirmative action is meant to artifically boost the number of college graduates from a selected set of underrepresented backgrounds. If it weren't the goal, this blind recruitment trial wouldn't have been immediately canceled: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-tri...
I'm talking about job applications here.. not all job applicants have college degrees. And your link is to an Australian gender study. We are talking about similar but different issues
I generally agree with your statement. I am also an African American but my first reaction to the change was very positive. On a more technical and pedantic level, having a "master" branch really doesn't make any sense without slave branches. So in this context a "main" branch eliminates any negative historical connotations and has a more precise meaning. To me, this another case of "that's how its always been" and some people react very negatively towards sudden change.
Related to this conversation: years ago Nikon removed the terminology of Master and Slave in their flash units in favor of Commander and Remote.
To the author: We have to start somewhere and it is a sign of progress (no matter how small) that finally there is some awareness around this issue and now something is being done about it
> On a more technical and pedantic level, having a "master" branch really doesn't make any sense without slave branches.
The reason master branches are called master branches is as an analogy to a music/record "master", which means "the original, the truest, the canonical".
(In an analog world where every copy necessitated deterioration, there was a need to say "this is THE version").
So git master branches meant the same thing: canonical. That's why the name "makes sense" even though there are no slave branches.
Just adding this here out of a sense of duty for historical accuracy, and not commenting on the name change itself.
It doesn't really matter which makes "more sense." You could call it the canon branch, the root branch, the trunk branch, the main branch, the master branch, whatever.
The point is that the word master, in this context, has a different etymology that the word master in say, a database. Now, that might not matter: if you care about changing the name of the branch you probably care about the way the name makes people feel, not the etymology of the word, and perhaps that's a good argument (personally I don't know and don't really care). Nonetheless, the etymology of the word is a factual statement, so I was correcting a poster who was assuming it was an analogy to a different context.
words do matter.. if they didn't, none of us on the thread would be talking about it. You can't splain away how a person from a different group feels or why. What is nice about other SCM systems like Mercurial, Fossil, CVS, SVN.. or basically anything not Git.. is that the language is clear and not offensive to anyone. It really is that simple
Coming from Mercurial which calls its default branch.. well "default" to Git which calls its default branch "master" was very jarring for me. So yeah, I definitly noticed
"master" has been in use for decades in the recording industry, the "record master" does not, and never did, have any slaves. This terminology was incorporated into software, back in the CD-ROM days, with their "gold master" from which copies would be produced.
I don't have a horse in this race, I just wanted to point out that the language is far more flexible than some people seem to think.
Christ just then verb “mastering”. I work in Hollywood at a big studio and mastering is incredibly common term for the process of ordering and creating digital masters. That is, the uncompressed “official” version of our movies that are used to for archiving and for creating other downstream versions of lesser quality.
I’m actually wondering if I should create a tongue-in-cheek movement to renaming this term across studios. It’s incredibly ingrained.
> the "record master" does not, and never did, have any slaves.
Are you sure about this? It seems the music industry is going through a parallel exercise. I'm not familiar with music industry terminology really, but it seems those who are disagree with you:
"Following that thread, [Pharrell] Williams suggested that the company “get ahead of this and do the right thing. Start with the terminology — like ‘master’ and ‘slave.’ Master being the main recording and the slave being all the copies made.”
...
Williams recalls hearing the loaded words “master” and “slave” paired in such a manner as a teen, when learning the ropes of the music business from R&B star Teddy Riley in Virginia Beach, Va. As his career took off, Williams spotted the terms woven into many of his contracts."
I cannot speak to what might've been contained in the contracts, but I am fairly confident that master/slave terminology wasn't used by the recording industry, just "master" and "mastering".
Google Ngrams/Book Search seems to validate this, too. I could find no results related to the recording industry that used master/slave terminology.
I'd personally be leery of accepting sources post-2020, due to the confidence with which people can recall false memories.
Okay, here's a book called "All You Need to Know About the Music Business" first published in 1991 by a recording industry lawyer (a guy who would have been involved in writing those contracts). It contains the passage:
"The word master has two meanings:
1. The original recording made in the studio is called a master, because it is the master (meaning controlling entity) from which all copies are made (the machines making the copies are called slaves—master/slave; get it?).
...
2. The word master also means a recording of one particular song. Thus, you might say an album has “ten masters” (meaning ten selections) on it. These individual recordings are also called cuts, because of the historical fact that each selection was “cut” into vinyl."
You originally said:
"This terminology was incorporated into software, back in the CD-ROM days, with their "gold master" from which copies would be produced."
So it appears you are referencing the first usage of the term master, which this industry insider explained in 1991 (a pre 2020 source) had a direct master/slave relationship to the copies, and the terminology was used knowingly to refer to a more conventional understanding of a master/slave relationship between humans.
This master/slave relationship between recordings seems to have been used in other contexts in the industry, showing its usage was widespread.
Here is a retailer explaining in 1998 what a "slave" reel is (in contrast to a "master" reel): "Historically refers to a reel of multitrack tape upon which there is a submix of the tracks from a “master reel” to record overdubs against. The purpose of slave reels is to more easily provide additional workspace (tracks) for creating multitrack recordings." https://www.sweetwater.com/insync/slave-reel/
Here is a post in a large community of audio enthusiasts about a recording from the 80s labeled as a "safety" for a master and slave reel. If you search on this site you can see the words master and slave used in various contexts from master/slave recordings to master/slave sync relationships: https://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/...
So to summarize we have:
- Accounts by several prominent artists of encountering master/slave terminology referring to recordings, both in common parlance and in contracts.
- A popular book (10 editions, 500k copies sold) written by a prominent recording industry lawyer, who would have been involved in writing contracts, that explicitly defines master recordings with respect to slave recordings. He even gives a wink/nudge to the common understanding of a master/slave relationship in human society.
- Various technologies that through the decades were advertised as having the capability to make "slave" recordings from "master" recordings.
- A community of audio enthusiasts who have incorporated master/slave terminology into their parlance.
Given this evidence, can you please explain to me whether you are still "fairly confident that master/slave terminology wasn't used by the recording industry"? What would it take to convince you otherwise?
Fair enough. I hadn't found any of these examples. I am not playing at being willfully blind; the avenues I used to research the terms did not turn up any of these results.
What's next? Are we going to rename master's as an academic degree? Are we going to start using words other than master or grandmaster to refer to experienced martial artists? What about chess?
> Are we going to rename master's as an academic degree?
Good Idea! I'm going to start a gofundme for a petition on change.org right now.
> What about chess?
Don't get me started about all the sexism (only one female character), classism (royalty vs pawn) and racism (black vs white) as well as animal abuse (war horses) in chess...
First of all, that $100 a year should cover all of what you just listed.
It costs Apple approximately $100 million to run the store. If the ~20 million developers are chipping in $100/yr, Apple is looking at $2 billion in fees just from developers. You can further take the costs of developing a secure platform just from the sales of iOS devices. (Its not like the iPhone is useful without the AppStore).
Apple is one of the most successful companies in the world worth over $2 trillion. They would be just fine dropping the fees from 30% (now 15%) to a more standard 2% for a basic transaction fee.
