Farid

It’s definitely not just a couple of seconds, unless you have a very lightweight OS and only 1 or 2 apps to work with. And no matter how little extra time it takes to cold boot the system, there’s still no benefit to doing it that way, so no matter how little that time is, it’s still wasted.

As I mentioned, one is free to use their computer however they wish, but it doesn’t make it not wasteful to shut it down. If grabbing something to eat was part of my daily routine, I’d grab it beforehand, instead of needlessly going back and forth, wake the computer and use it immediately.

Firstly, I normally have way more than two apps open. And secondly, in case of a few apps, I personally still value the couple minutes of my time more than I do 2% of my battery. But to each their own.

I used to have a watercooled PC, I don’t remember it making any sounds while in sleep. Why would the pump run when PC is asleep?

I was mostly talking about stationary computers, but even in case of a laptop (unless it runs Windows which has terrible sleep management) the benefits of starting your work immediately once you open the lid outweighs the cons of losing a couple percent of battery overnight.

But you can’t bring the same argument back to me. Cold booting requires more time and effort. Thus to make that argument, one needs to provide the benefits that compensate for the downsides. Some people provided possible benefits that matter to their specific case, like, PSU makes noise (actually, that was you in a different thread), or they want to save laptop battery, etc. But if we are taking about a modern stationary computer with mains power, there’s practically no benefit to shutting it down, only downsides.

Of course it’s completely valid for somebody to do it out of habit, but they can’t expect to use that as a valid argument for others to do it.

But a sleeping computer is just as quiet as a shut down computer… Which is totally silent. I don’t get it.

Even if it’s only one app, what is the purpose? To save on electricity that powers RAM?

Even if the boot time is fast, you lose a lot of the program states. Not only it takes extra time to load those applications, it’s also a fair amount of effort to put everything back where it should be.

If it was necessary to shut computers down, no problem, it’s not too much time and effort. But there’s normally no need to shut computers down, it’s just wasted time with no benefits (usually).

I don’t think anybody in Seychelles ever seeds on purpose. Being a remote island (archipelago), the internet prices are insane. Almost nobody has uncapped internet, mostly only business.

Remembering how Subset Games is notoriously anti-mobile I looked into it. Turns out, as usual, they did not intend to release a mobile port, just like with FTL. They have an FTL iPad port, but refused to release an Android port due to piracy concerns, claiming it wasn’t worth the effort to bother with the port. But Netflix approached them and sponsored the mobile ports for Into the Breach. In other words, if not for Netflix, the game would not have been playable on mobile at all. This likely applies to all the other Netflix exclusive games, they don’t buy licenses, they sponsor the ports.

And even if they were just buying licenses and making games available only through Netflix, then go complain to the game devs, not Netflix. Devs are the ones who agreed to it when they were offered money.

Never used Prime, so can’t comment.

Hmm, didn’t know that one was exclusive to Netflix. It’s not a universal thing or a rule, cause San Andreas Definitive Edition, for example, is available for purchase for $20. Probably depends on what the game publisher agreed to.

I think you’re looking at it the wrong way. It’s just an extra that you have for “free”, not a dedicated gaming subscription. I also live in Europe and my Netflix is cheap, so I will have the subscription by default (cause a lot of people in my family watch it), which means I get to try the games for free. You can always just go buy them if you want, from the store.

Where did I say “government does stuff”? If a service is provided not for profit, funded by the community and is otherwise not privately owned, it’s socialist. It needs to be for-profit and/or privately owned to be capitalist.

Arguably, The US does have several socialist policies, albeit implemented very badly. For instance, public education. Does capitalism stick its grubby fingers into it from every possible angle? Yes. But at its core it has collective funding through taxes (therefore owned/controlled by the state), universal access, and the prioritization of public welfare over profit (at least on paper). Those principles are strictly socialist and not capitalist.

It’s not about strictly “owning”, it’s about controlling. Control can be achieved in many different ways, including, but not limited to regulations. Socialism is an economic system, of which you can implements certain parts.
I didn’t say “social policies”. Socialist policies are a more specific subset of social policies, so all socialist policies are social policies, but not all social policies are socialist.
Regarding the European countries’ degree of being socialist, it of course depends on the country. But on average, you might be right, and perhaps using “equally” was an exaggeration.

Lots of people on Lemmy forget that the choice between Capitalism and Socialism isn’t binary. Country picks individual policies that are capitalist or socialist in nature. All of the modern countries are a combination of both. Even USA has certain socialist policies. Most of Europe is roughly equally capitalist and socialist.
It’s just making a character build and picking perks. Capitalist policies aren’t bad (for the general public) by default. Depending on how and which ones are implemented, they can be beneficial to everybody.

Really? That’s weird.

But then it would just all be Linux? Was that what you were trying to say?

I merely tried to provide a response in the same tier as yours.