I mainly do work indoors, so the brightness does not really matter that much to me. But as far as I can tell, the brightness is pretty normal for laptops - I don’t think it’s any brighter or dimmer than other laptops I’ve used in the past. According to this website that I found, brightness is 25 to 486 nits. Google search seems to say that average maximum brightness for laptops is somewhere around 300-400 nits.

My understanding is that the screen is generally what eats up most of the battery on device, so if you plan to have brightness turned up, it might be difficult to find a laptop with a long battery life.

The cpu is on the mainboard and can’t be removed, but you can replace the entire mainboard. Basically, you can upgrade, but you’ll have to upgrade a couple other things along with it

Just tested with normal power profile and screen brightness turned down - battery went down by about 50% after 3 hours. I think my laptop usually dies after 3 hours because I have the screen brightness up

Yes, but that’s my point, you see. Because Arm historically has been used for mobile and small devices, there’s been a strong incentive for decades to emphasize power efficiency. Because x86 historically has been used for desktops, there’s been a strong incentive to emphasize power. It’s only been very recently that Arm attempted to have comparable power, and even more recently that x86 attempted to have comparable power efficiency.

Sure, Arm is currently more efficient, but the general consensus is that there’s no inherent reason for why Arm must be more efficient than x86. In other words, the only reason it is more efficient is just because they’ve been focusing on efficiency for longer.

Both AMD and Intel’s current gen x86 cpu’s are, from what I can tell, basically spitting distance away from Qualcomm’s Arm cpu’s in terms of battery life, and rumor has it that both x86 companies should be able to match Arm chips in efficiency by next gen.

So if efficiency is a priority for you, I think it’s worthwhile to wait and see what the cpu companies cook up in the next couple of years, especially as both AMD and Intel seem to be heavily focused on maximizing efficiency right now

My understanding is that Arm chips don’t have any fundamental advantage over x86 chips. They’re more efficient simply because they’ve been optimized to be more efficient for so long. I’ve heard that upcoming Intel and AMD chips could be able to compete with the new Arm cpu’s, so if you’re not going to get a new laptop soon, it seems worthwhile to just wait and see

Yes, I don’t use the external GPU. I just use the AMD APU. Also I realized that AMD 7000 could refer to both the cpu and the GPU. Ah, AMD and their marketing

Kubuntu on Framework 16 AMD 7000 series here. Sleep is horrible - definitely drains your battery. Bag heats up, and I estimate maybe a 1% drain per hour. I’ve enabled hibernate though I rarely use it.

Battery is alright but not great. I get maybe 2-3 hours of active, light use from full battery.

No compatibility issues that I’ve noticed, though, of course, Linux has its fair share of minor non-hardware-related bugs.

Camera is serviceable but not amazing. Not sure about microphone but I assume the same thing. Speakers are somewhat odd in that the speakers are pointed to the side rather than toward the front, but again - serviceable.

I think having higher frame rates isn’t necessarily about whether our eyes can perceive the frame or not. As another commenter pointed out there’s latency benefits, but also, the frame rate affects how things smear and ghost as you move them around quickly. I don’t just mean in gaming. Actually, it’s more obvious when you’re just reading an article or writing something in Word. If you scroll quickly, the words blur and jitter more at low frame rates, and this is absolutely something you can notice. You might not be able to tell the frametime, but you can notice that a word is here one moment and next thing you know, it teleported 1 cm off

Regardless of the reason, the end result is still the same, which is that new users are left with the idea that terminal is essential for using Linux.

You can say that you set up a distro without using terminal all you want, but as long as new users don’t know how to do that, my point still stands. Frankly, the fact that you even thought to bring up that point feels like, to me, extra proof that experienced users are highly dismissive of the new user experience.

I mainly play indie titles, but actually zero times so far. Steam really does everything for you nowadays

As a recent Linux user, I can say that he’s got a point, but he’s making the wrong point. What I’ve learned is that technically, you don’t have to use terminal. But as a new user, you’re never made aware that there are non-terminals options. Every time you try installing a program or really doing anything, the first response on any article or forum is generally going to be to open up terminal and start typing. Linux is in a weird spot because the are so many desktop environments that the only way to make a tutorial that works on all distributions is to tell the user to use terminal. Yet by doing so, you are pushing away new users who will begin to think that Linux is too technical for normal use.

I see many experienced users dismiss new users’ concerns because “you don’t actually need terminal,” but I don’t think these people really understand that while that’s technically true, the new user experience has been constant tutorials and articles that basically state the exact opposite. I’m not sure what a good solution would be, but I do think that experienced users need to acknowledge that just because new users identify an incorrect problem, doesn’t mean that there isn’t a problem at all

The biggest difficulty with answering this question I think is that I don’t know how broad the categories should be. Do you have an estimate of how many categories you’re looking for?

Well, I’m just covering my bases. I can’t personally imagine an instance in which it would be helpful, but human nature (and especially human nature of children) can be really hard to predict and I won’t deny that I might have missed a case in which it could be helpful.

My upbringing was extremely “do what you want, but deal with the consequences.”

“You can watch an R-rated horror movie, but don’t come to me if you can’t sleep at night”-type of situation.

My impression has generally been that my freedom to do what I want let me learn a lot about decision making, responsibility, curiosity, and modern survival skills like Googling things. I’m genuinely baffled by how poorly some people my age use the computer and find things on Google, and I somewhat suspect many of them probably simply haven’t had the opportunity to explore technology on their own. And a lot of my hobbies were developed exactly because I allowed to do what I wanted when I was a child.

As for children doing stupid shit and searching up things that aren’t appropriate for their age, my thought has generally been, why is it the parent’s role to keep that from the child? I strongly believe that a parent’s role is to prepare the child to be a functional adult, not to baby them.

I acknowledge that all children are different, and perhaps there are some cases in which having parental controls would help. But I think my life would be duller if I were raised with parental controls.

Edit: having read some of the other comments, I think there’s 2 aspects to the question of parental control. The first is the aspect of children learning about age-inappropriate things, which I’ve mainly been focusing on. The other is the aspect of discipline and management (ie, preventing your children from spending 12 hours on YouTube). I think people have made interesting points about this aspect, and I respect their opinions. I personally agree with BananaKing’s take that parental controls is the wrong tool for the job. Train your children properly and you shouldn’t need to use parental controls to control their screen time.

Thanks for the details! I forgot some of the details since I last took a course in linguistics like almost 10 years ago

Asterisk means that the word has been reverse engineered without any direct evidence backing it up. All proto languages will have asterisks in front of all their words because proto languages are, by definition, languages that were used before anything was written down.

The reverse engineered word is likely to be correct (or at least, as correct as we can be), but in the absence of direct evidence, it’s still just guesswork

The numbers you’re talking about are because we know that there are different consonants used, but we don’t entirely know what sounds those consonants are. So we just write all of the consonants that likely sounded somewhat like the letter h as h1, h2, h3, etc., and repeat for the other uncertain consonants.

So basically h1 definitely sounds different than h2, but as for exactly what they sound like, all we know is that both of them are kinda like h

My partner recently shared a video/clip about the differences between the way girls do makeup to attract guys vs the way girls do makeup to attract girls. What your comment reads like to me is that she put on the light makeup because she figured you would like that, but now, she’s figured that there’s no need to attract you with her makeup anymore

No makeup at all for me. I know that some women have a “no makeup” makeup, the kind where you say you don’t have any but you actually do. I don’t like that either. (she thought that I couldn’t tell)

One of my cats love fishing used tea leaves out from mugs. She doesn’t eat them, she just paws the leaves out from the cups and then leaves them on the counter. We have no idea why she does it but she absolutely insists on doing it. No other cat does this.

Describing my job? Yeah, sure. I do science.

Explaining my job? Hell no. Nobody is willing to read a 20 page lit review to start to understand the background of what I do