BananaTrifleViolin

That valve uses Arch is irrelevant in all honesty. Proton is not a Valve product, Valve is merely one of its users and contributors, and it is not wedded to one distro..Similarly Valves own Steam packages are not distro specifi, and there are other gaming platforms to consider which also benefit from Proton (for example you can get Gog windows games working in Linux too quite easily), as well as all the Retro gaming options.

Pick a distro you personally like. I use Mint as I like the cinnamon desktop interface and the distro is pretty much good to go from fresh install. I use Mint both as a dual install with Windows on my PC and also within VMs in Windows. I still spend a lot of time using Windows because of specific games compatibility and work related apps.

EndeavourOS seems a good choice if you do want to go the Arch route but it's only something I've played with in a VM.

If you want something gaming specific then Draugar seems like a good choice - it apparently uses Ubuntu LTS but with the mainline Kernel updates optimised for gaming. But I have no personal experience with the distro.

I also see a lot of people seem to like Pop!_OS, but again no personal experience.

I've had no issues with Mint on my setup.

Is Anbox no longer a thing? It runs Android apps in a container.

Or is it more the issue with the apps not running "natively"?

Not strictly correct. Spotify pays out from its net revenues (revenues when billing costs and tax are removed) and it pays to the various industry rights holders who then distribute the money. There are lots of complex deals in place and big rights holders are likely to have better deals than ad hoc users, plus it's different in different countries.

The 70% figure is a PR thing Spotify pushes about as part of its constant battles with rights holders on exactly how much it will pay them. It's trying to claim most of the money goes to artists but it's opaque how much goes where.

I don't understand? You can download Dosbox and Dosbox-X in desktop mode and add them to Steam like other apps. Why do you need a website?

This may also be about trying to take control of OpenAI. Despite owning 49% of OpenAI, the company is seemingly set up so the 5 board members have control and they're seemingly not under the control of investors.

Could this actually be about Altman and his allies trying to take the company fully for-profit so they could benefit? It also seems Altman is very close to Microsoft, so rather than product roadmap this might actually about trying to take control of the company.

Microsoft hiring the staff and forming an AI unit is a boon to them if it happens, but OpenAI still own and controls everything they've worked on up to date, and it seems the Investors don't control that judging by the boards independance.

Meanwhile Altman is tweeting very concillatory OpenAI but pro Microsoft position. This may be a battle for the whole company, not just a personality thing.

It's also disingenuous lies. This money is being spent over 11 years so is more in the realm of £750m a year.

This is also a classic trick of the Conservative government and is why the NHS is also in a mess: they steal money from capital investment budgets and use it to spend on day-to-day operational stuff.

In the NHS they took money from the capital budget and diverted it to day to day spending, claiming it as "new money". It was an increase in day-to-day spending but it was not new money. Instead NHS trusts now have big backlogs of equipment and buildings needing replacement and being used beyond intended life cycle because the money was stolen.

Pot hole repair is day-to-day road maintenance, not infrastructure or capital investment. HS2 was a new capital project. This is just more bullshit lies by the government and a huge issue here is how shit journalism is now. The BBC hasn't questioned this spending pledge at all, instead it's posted a bullshit superficial article on potholes.

If you implement it from fresh then it is a new program. What matters is what your contract says about what you produce - some contracts pay claim to anything you make even outside of working hours.

Also if you rewrite it, while technically it is a fresh project if there are substantial similarities in how you implement it there could be an argument made that you have reused code that belongs to the company. Even if that is technical false it could be something you'd have to defend sometime in the future. As others have said, implementing the program in a different language and using a different methodology wherever possible should help protect against that.

I think the advice others have given that you should review your contract with a lawyer is sound even if this will be FOSS. It's mainly about ensuring you don't inadvertently open yourself to potential legal repercussions down the line, even if your employers at the moment seem benign. If you do work for a company that lays claim to everything you produce even in your off hours then I would strongly recommend you consider leaving or an exit plan, particularly if you are the sort of person who would be working on your own projects for fun or even your own business ventures.

This feels misleading? They're claiming Linux has been hard coded to 8 cores but from what they describe in the article it is specifically the scaling of the scheduler?

If I understood correctly the more cores you have, the more you could scale up the time each individual task gets on a CPU core without experiencing latency for the end user?

I can see that would have a benefit in terms of user perception Vs efficient use of processing time but it doesn't mean all the cores aren't being used? It just means the kernel is still switching between tasks at say 5ms when it could be doing it at 20ms if you have lots of cores and the user wouldn't notice. I can imagine that would be more efficient but it's definitely not the same as being capped to 8 cores; all the cores and CPUs are being scheduled just not in a way that might be the most optimal for some users.

Is that right? I feel like the title massively overplays the issue if so. It should be fixed but it doesn't affect how many cores are used or even how fasr they work, merely how big the chunks of time each task get to run and how you can "hide" that from desktop users so the experience feels slick?

While it's a factor it probably isn't the root of the problem. The problem is car manufacturers are building the cars faster than the market is growing and at high price points than consumers want in a time of economic difficulty and inflation.

We're still seeing build out of electric infrastructure, expensive cars vs petrol cars, and a relatively small second hand market (which also drives infrastructure expansion). It also doesn't help that countries are pushing back promises to ban non-EV car sales. Dealership monopolies certainly exacerbate all those problems.

This story headline is nonsense though. EVs are working and are growing. The story is actually that car companies have made expensive attempts at grabbing market share which haven't worked and are now counting the costs. They're delaying the rate of growth in production, not reducing production - significant difference.

Mozilla needs funding. By taking money from Google and DuckDuckGo specifically for search it allows Firefox to remain independent and the software it produces is underpins lots of other even more independent privacy respecting software.

The eco system around Firefox needs Firefox to survive. Unless a better funding source comes along Firefox would be in jeopardy. Having. Said that Thunderbird has been successfully turned around due to a well run community pursuing donations and volunteers.

It would also be good if countries stumped up some of the funding Mozilla and other crucial open source projects like Linux need, to maintain a strong software ecosystem. Similar to how many European countries fund national broadcasters to maintain media diversity.

As a doctor, we would work and hour more or less depending on the shift changed. Im paid a supplement to work out of hours rather than by the hour, so we'd just suck it up of working an extra hour and be happy if we worked less.

If you're paid hourly then you'd be paid for the time you worked.

But shift starts and finishes were unchanged, it was just the length that got altered.

Out of interest what part of the UI don't you like? You can drag and drop pretty much any button and component where ever you want and you can use the Firefox colours website to apply any colour scheme you want. This is all core browser features so no performance affects.

What is it that a theme is then adding?