I found it informative and probably from honest experience. It's superficial chearful embrace towards problems people create for themselves is instructive towards correcting those habits.

Or when an experiment's results have been challenged or disregarded yet people continue to recall the first experiment's results. For example, the Stanford prison psychology study.

However, yes, poorly constructed headlines meant to attract a click rather than true information is still bad. Though that might be a fault of the collective being more interested in snipping headlines without reading the articles behind it.

Unfortunately they just state "... some first-generation X399 motherboards may not be able to deliver enough power..."

And not specifically which.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/06/amd-unveils-threadri...

If their statement is false then that's on them.

Regardless damn good on AMD.

So wouldn't this discovery relating to Mars further hint that it may have supported life in its past?

Price is probably high for the hardware though I think it's goes back into further open-source libre development.

But if it is important to you, you'll actually 'own' your computer.

Ah how I wish I still had a laptop with the nub (even if it had a touch pad too). I've never really understood why that didn't become standard since I think Toshiba and maybe even Dell had a variant of it.

The multi-gesture touch pads are nice, but for precision and minimal interference without a standard desk mouse the nub is supreme.

Then, since they're proprietary programs, you can't really fix them yourself even if you had the ability to do otherwise. Therefore research if others have had similar experience with those particular programs. Then, if those programs have actual Linux support, contact them and let them know what issues you're encountering. Since they're not open source libre software the community can't fix it so it's those companies programmers jobs to fix those problems.

There are obviously political and ethical aspects you may be concerned about but I think it's better to just not get into that now.

You mention needing a laptop with hardware supported by Linux. I would recommend first beginning with looking at various laptops sold with Linux. This should take care of any hardware incompatibility others have mentioned (though do your research).

Linux (or GNU-Linux) packages most of it's drivers in the Linux kernal (please correct if I'm mistaken) so that if a piece of hardware is supported it is ready to go after you install the OS.

It should be noted however that graphics cards/units have various levels of support with from what I understand Intel currently having the best open source support with Nvidia haveing pretty decent proprietary drivers. Ati/AMD varries though that shouldn't necessarily preclude you from an AMD processor. Importantly do your research on support for those components.

As far as software is concerned that I haven't the foggiest idea what to recommend. If you just need a web browser, an office suite, and streaming video, then Ubuntu I would say handles all that pretty good. (It's all I've run for the last couple years, and mixed before that).

Most importantly patience, research, and if you can't find an answer always ask. And be open to learning (until you die).

Thanks. I think that's why I've seen mushrooms recommended before trying something stronger like LSD.

I wouldn't recommend LSD not because I had a bad experience but because I felt why someone could. It's a scary drug that you really don't have a lot of control over until its effects start to wear off.

With something like alcohol or marijuana you mostly have control, you can kind of regulate how much of their effects you want to experience by consuming more or less, their effects wear off relatively quickly, and you can sleep them off. For the most part.

Anyways, the main reason why I wouldn't recommend LSD is because I think an individual that's interested should research it themselves and decide if they want to themselves. They shouldn't try it because someone said it was good or that others are doing it.

At anyrate the thoughts are along the lines of distributing shares of a company either eveningly to everyone or depending on how much an individual contributes will be returned with some increase in shares. Anyone participating in any form of company is at least immediately given some share. For example if you helped produce something that the company sells you're given some ownership. However additionally shares of ownership can be attained by directly buying the product that has been produced.

Idealisticly the goal is a company, or companies, where every one benefits from the interactions/transactions and not a small number of individuals that have direct incentives to consolidate more.

So there's potential there I would imagine in regards to testing that hypothesis. However what mainly bothers me with it is that it doesn't explain the origin of life and why Earth couldn't have original life begin on it.

Unless we can rule out that early Earth conditions would have been too inhospitable for life to start but was sufficient to sustain it I see no reason to think an extraterrestrial origin to Earth life is more likely.

Unfortunately if you compare Islamic societies in the late 19th/early 20th centuries to those from middle of the 20th to now it's seemingly become regressive and insular.

Let's not forget that if you go back a few centuries further Islamic societies were progressing and preserving scientific knowledge while Christendom was rolling around in mud (I'm exaggerating).

Further questioning I have though is, does solar radiation penetrate through ocean water?

What radiation is between solar systems or what rogue planets would likely encounter, and how that effects single cell life, amino acids, organic compounds, and any other building blocks to life?

How life began is obviously still an unanswered question, but if the conditions for self replicating molecules were sufficient early on for Earth, I'm not sure why billions of years would be needed for life to form versus several hundred million years.