Yeah but there's clunky in the way where its big but still a single unit as designed and intended, and clunky when its got some extra growth hanging off the back of it like some technological parasite.
Of course, my advice is only that, and you should choose the approach that works best for you. But advice is why you came here right :)
I have a portable monitor that I'm pretty pleased with.
It has a magnetic cover that goes over the screen to keep it safe, and that same cover folds and goes on the back to act as a stand when it's in use. Power and video are via the same USB-C cable.
Nice and slim and stays in my bag most of the time but when I want a second screen I can whip it out in two secs.
A screen that attaches to the laptop sounds convenient initially, but I feel like in practice it would be a hindrance and make your laptop clunky and bulky.
Never have I felt so emotionally invested in the wellbeing of an anime character as I have for this girl.
In the UK at least, mobile phone ownership per household was only 16% in 1996 and didn't reach 50% until the year 2000.
To have a phone in '92 you'd need to either be wealthy or have it through a company for business.
My dad had a phone in 95 for work and it was an absolute brick.
As for mobile internet, that wasn't really a thing until smartphones happened with the iPhone. Yes we had WAP and other precursors to the full internet but it was awful and nobody used it, ever. In 2007 I was a geeky nerd at uni doing Comp Sci and had a Windows Mobile PDA in a belt holster, with full internet! But most people didn't have Internet until about 2009-10
In the UK at least, mobile phone ownership per household was only 16% in 1996 and didn't reach 50% until the year 2000.
To have a phone in '92 you'd need to either be wealthy or have it through a company for business.
My dad had a phone in 95 for work and it was an absolute brick.
As for mobile internet, that wasn't really a thing until smartphones happened with the iPhone. Yes we had WAP and other precursors to the full internet but it was awful and nobody used it, ever. In 2007 I was a geeky nerd at uni doing Comp Sci and had a Windows Mobile PDA in a belt holster, with full internet! But most people didn't have Internet until about 2009-10
Pop!_OS is the next big
(It finished there)
AI is absolutely going to be transformative but a lot of the hate right now isn't the technology itself but the way companies are jumping on it and forcing it down the throats of people who don't want it, in a way that worsens their customer experience. Yes, let's force AI into every software product. Yes let's take away the humans you used to talk to and make them all bots instead.
Even from within tech itself there is huge resentment because you've got corps pumping billions into AI while at the same time slashing their workforce to afford those billions, with no clear return in sight.
Tech is treating AI as the next dotcom boom and pumping everything into it, but just like it did then the bubble of investment will burst, and there will be losers as well as winners.
I'm running self-hosted LLMs at home and I'm having huge fun experimenting with their capabilities. I just wish LLMs could have been implemented in the real world with space for ethics and the human factor, not the pure profit chasing bullshit we actually got.
He didn't get jail time for falling for a scam, he got jail time for stealing people's money.
That's the strategy, yes
Why is "helicopter" commonly shortened to "helo" rather than "heli" ?
I know right! That's genuinely the whole damn point of the fediverse - freedom from being exploited and monetised.
I'd never subject myself to ads on Lemmy, no matter how good the client is.
For this freedom we do of course rely on the generosity of those who pay the server bills, for which I'm eternally grateful.
Of course. The definition of what is ugly and what isn't is subjective and nostalgia obviously plays a part in that.
But I think it's quite fair to say that almost nobody would consider a postbox to be an eyesore. It's a functional design but it also has aesthetic elements to it which exist purely to make it look nice, and it's doing an okay job at that.
Contrast to a telecom utility box which is purely functional, a rectangular box coloured in a drab gray or green in the hopes that our eyes might just wander over without noticing it is even there. Intentionally avoidant because nobody wants to see it.
So I very much stand by my opinion on which "needs" painting and which does not.
I can easily see both sides on this one.
In one way I have little sympathy. It's the same as parents complaining after they show their child a violent anime, that it was a 'cartoon' and so it must be for children - having made that snap judgement without investigating the contents in the slightest.
On the other hand, as the article rightly suggests, there are established conventions in the publishing industry and this book defied them.
They are conventions I personally kinda hate, because they are the reason every Crime paperback looks the same as each other, and every Sci-Fi book is instantly recognisable as that genre on the shelves. But the conventions do exist.
In mass-market publishing terms, sparkly happy cartoon = children.
The publisher and author totally knew what they were doing here and they did it anyway. It's wilfully misleading.
Whether established standards should be enough to absolve a parent of the responsibility to understand what they are giving to their child, though, you decide.