Composited desktops have their drawbacks. With a display system like X11 or old-school GDI-based Windows, draws to the display are next to immediate, whereas with composited desktops, everybody has to draw to a back buffer, then the back buffers have to be composited together on the final display, adding at least one frame of latency. Mouse cursors have been a hardware sprite since the 90s, but Wayland compositors may favor using the GPU to draw a soft cursor.
It'd be interesting to see a compositor that can speak Wayland, yet performs immediate, region-clipped draws of all windows like X11 conventionally does.
Unlike men, women tend seek out emotional support networks as a matter of course. There's probably some reduction as they age, but it's probably from like, the entire glee club to their husband, kids, five or six girls they keep up with from high school and the neighbor lady. A particularly gregarious woman like my wife can grow her support network. This is definitely an area meriting more research.
As a trans women, I have a unique perspective on how gender impacts social relations having lived life in each of the two worlds.
Like commenters above mention, emotional support is table stakes in friendship among women. It is a kinder, gentler world - the kind of world you perhaps remember growing up in. That world still exists, but it's typically not accessible to men once they reach adulthood.
How could men access the world of emotional support? By disassociating the idea of gender and emotional support. Growing up in the 90s and 2000s, I remember emotional vulnerability being associated with homosexuality - it was "gay" for men to be emotionally vulnerable with eachother, typically leaving men with women[spouses] or family members as their only source of emotional support. The way out is decouple these two things, to un-"gay" emotional vulnerability between men.
What does it look like? Checking in on friends, learning to open up yourself, increasing emotional intelligence, learning how to hold space and reflectively listen. Not trying to solve people's problems when what they want is to be heard. All of these skills and norms exist within feminine spaces as a matter of course and when folks say "putting in the work" it means learning to employ these things.
It means that being emotionally vulnerable doesn't imply a sexual advancement. It means enforcing that as a reality.
The challenge I’ve seen, is women’s groups tend to not have/allow boundaries. At least in a ‘you can’t say no’ type of way. Lying/hiding stuff is of course pervasive, as a defense. It’s a really common pattern. ‘Mean girls’, ‘gossip group’, etc.
In many, it’s typical to discuss everything from the sex habits of them and their partners (in excruciating detail), their own and others affairs, to every embarrassing detail of their kids lives. It often seems to be a competition to see who can get the most exciting ‘tea’ out of each other.
In my experience, having indirectly seen/overheard many of these discussions, most men would be horrified if they knew what was really going on.
It happens in some men’s groups, but is much, much rarer.
As for my story - I’ve seen quite a few.
Office politics where a senior woman leader was essentially running a ‘sex for leverage’ campaign against all the men (and a couple women) in the group, using the women in the group as ‘bait’.
A church where the pastor got convicted of child molestation, but where the community insisted he be forgiven (after getting out), and he was indeed reinstated - while another part of the congregation had their entire family driven from the group (and harassed socially in the community for years) because the father divorced his spouse because of infidelity and physically abusive behaviors.
Oh, and the classic ‘ex wives club’ stalking and harassing an ex, and any new wife - and manipulating her into ruining herself and joining the club.
I’ve seen all these play out first hand, and they are just a drop in the bucket. I’ve ceased to be amazed at the cruelty often demonstrated.
Abusive men tend to work a bit differently, so their setups often look more directly hierarchical and have less information sharing going on. They tend to operate more off secrecy and/or threats of explicit violence, than manipulation.
But I’ve seen a few (rare) instances of similar setups. People can be awesome. People can be terrible.
Most men that "open up" to their partners get backstabbed by what they shared and then learn to not do it anymore for protection. Women's love for gossiping is much higher than their empathy.
It's a state of being emotionally exposed in way that includes uncertainty. Like sharing emotions when you're unsure how the other person will respond. In this case, it might mean opening up more to an acquaintance as a way to develop a friendship but being unsure how they would receive that or reciprocate.
Why would you go through the effort of creating a sockpuppet just to hurt someone being uncommonly genuine and sharing insights from their lived experience? It’s pathetic. (Not to mention incredibly insecure. Phew!)
If you don’t change, don’t be surprised to find yourself utterly alone in a few decades’ time.
> Sometimes people are acting in extremely perverse, foul, destructive and antisocial ways, and they need to be castigated for it rather than told how brave and powerful they are.
Precisely. This is what I am telling you right now. You lack the very manhood you espouse. Pathetic.
OP made some insightful points that will stick in my mind and impact my life, and I am sure many others feel the same way. Your comment, on the other hand, will soon be flagged out of existence. A complete waste of energy. Your time would have been better spent jacking off in a corner.
> What does it look like? Checking in on friends, learning to open up yourself, increasing emotional intelligence, learning how to hold space and reflectively listen.
My female friends frequently remind me to check in on my male friends, and it’s valuable to reflect on why I don’t make the effort and what it would take to get me to change. Being more vulnerable would only improve my life and yet it feels so difficult. A trans perspective is particularly insightful here, I think, since it straddles both worlds.
> Being more vulnerable would only improve my life and yet it feels so difficult.
It feels difficult because of the betrayals that would only get worse. I bet some of those female friends would love to hear your insecurities, too. And some will gossip to their other female friends (and not friends, maybe other males they want attention) in your back.
> A trans perspective is particularly insightful here, I think, since it straddles both worlds.
> No, it doesn't. Will this madness stop some day?
Many people disagree. You will either have to make peace with that or be a miser, I guess.
As for the rest, I suggest you take that red pill out of your mouth. The only thing it’s doing is poisoning you and robbing you of meaningful human connection.
Yes. You have a ship and can explore the galaxy, trade goods, fight off pirate raids, etc. It was one of the deepest games available for any system during its time. There was a NES port only available in Europe; its CHR ROM was actually RAM, allowing the game's vector graphics to be drawn into it in framebuffer-like fashion for an experience that matched the computer ports.
More like someone at IBM. The memory map mapped BIOS, video, and PCjr cartridge memory into the upper memory area. Other contemporaneous, non-IBM-compatible x86 systems of the era could relax this restriction. The Tandy 2000 loaded its BIOS from disk (instead of having it in ROM) and ran MS-DOS (indeed, its BIOS API was IBM-compatible even though hardware wise it was not), and could access up to 768K of user memory flat out (896K with aftermarket expansions). This briefly gave it an advantage handling large spreadsheets and the like.
Today, 4 GiB, which was enough to run an entire university back in the 90s, is what the most rinky-dink Wal-Mart special laptops come with and Windows barely runs at all on that much.
If Bill Gates had said "640k ought to be enough for everybody", at the time he could hardly be blamed for doing so, as single-user desktop machines of the day still typically shipped with 1/10 or 1/5 that much.
As I understand it... one of the reasons why the Soviets fell behind in computer technology was because back in the 60s, while Soviet engineers had good designs that were state-of-the-art for the era, the communist economic planners estimated the requirements for computer manufacture to be one per university or government department for a total of maybe a few thousand, while Western manufacturers were getting orders into the tens or hundreds of thousands... and they had to come up with new technologies to produce the machines faster and cheaper in order to keep up, let alone compete with other manufacturers. So the market in the west grew explosively, requiring concomitant growth in innovation, and that put the Soviets on the back foot, requiring them to smuggle in and reverse engineer System/370s, PDPs, etc. in order to stay current.
It also didn’t help matters that Stalin was greatly opposed to cybernetics, resulting in no research done on the topic until 1954, the year after he died. And even then, things didn’t really kick off until 1958.
It’s true! Though a multicolor logo for the Super Mario Bros. 3 title screen does appear on the SNES and GBA (Super Mario Advance) version, which is super fun but I didn’t include it because it wasn’t on the box art that way.
Certain prey animals, especially gazelles, engage in dramatic leaps known as stotting. This behavior makes them highly visible to predators. One theory for why they do this is as a fitness signal to predators, who generally want to go for the easy pickin's, not the ones who present a challenge, and represent taking on more effort and risk of injury or just wasted energy.
Most lions also know not to prey on humans, for similar reasons: if a lion took a human, it risks being hunted down by other humans related to their prey. Most "man-eating" lions or tigers are starving or injured, therefore desperate, and lions are largely seen in Africa as pest creatures who take livestock.
(Hippopotamuses, by contrast, give absolutely no fucks and will kill you on sight. Africans consider the hippopotamus to be the fiercest animal by far, even more so than the lion.)
I knew about the stotting, but figured it was for mating. The predator thing makes sense.
Hippos also hang out around humans a lot, which increases the chances of unfortunate misunderstandings (almost always resolving in favor of the hippo).
I remember visiting a village in Uganda, on the banks of the Nile.
They had a couple of jettys, going out into the river, and between them, a series of poles and whatnot. It looked like a fish hatchery.
Didn't matter. It was a hippo sofa. There was this hippo, just lying in the water, right in the middle of one of the busiest areas of the village. We were told that it was a regular. Everyone just ignored it.
The jury is still out, as to whether it is worse to be in front of an angry hippo, or behind an incontinent one.
reply