On most modern distros (like Mint) you can do basically as much with Linux GUIs as you can do in Windows or Mac. So normal users don't need the terminal. But if you want to do more, if you want the secret sauce, the terminal is there for you.

But fear not! Basically all of us have some level of autism or ADHD, and the best of us tend to be the most extreme. If anything the terminal was written by autistic nerds for themselves! If you'll be okay being a bit of a n00b for a bit, I think you'll find there's a lot of depth here to obsess over / hyper fixate / hyper focus on.

There's a reason people have been "fighting" for, like, 40 years over which terminal text editor is the superior one... The flames of war can run pretty deep, and there's a lot of opinions.

I'm not the person you're replying to, and I don't have any videos, but I do love dumping explanation on people! So here's some terms:

File System: This is the way data is laid out in terms of actual bytes on the drive. It's in charge of things like where to look to find the name of this file, or how to "last modified" date is stored, or how do I find out which files are in this folder. NTFS is a filesystem, whereas ext4 is probably the file system your linux machine is using. FAT is the older Windows one that's still used on, like, SD Cards and stuff. That having been said File System is sometimes also used to refer to the particular data on a particular partition of a disk, like "the filesystem will allow" which really means the data on your NTFS partition. Filesystem is often abbreviated "fs", and is in fact the "FS" of "NTFS"

Mounting: In unix systems, such as Linux, file systems are "mounted" to a place in the folder hierarchy. Everything in unix lives somewhere under the "root" folder /, so mounting is basically saying "Okay, you want to see the files in this filesystem. Where should I put them?", and if you say /home/user/stuff then the file "one.txt" at the root of your filesystem will now be visible at /home/user/stuff/one.txt", and if you mounted it at /mnt/things it would be /mnt/things/one.txt. The term mount is used like "attach" to mean "where do you want me to hang this new directory hierarchy on your existing one".

fstab: There are a few ways to mount things in modern linux. The classic is the mount command which looks something like mount /dev/sda1 /home/user/stuff which would take the device with the name /dev/sda1 and mounts it to the given path. Devices in linux usually live in /dev, and in this case are often given names like sda1 to represent the first hard drive (a), and the first partition of that drive (1). But, there are other ways! You can also click on the partition in your file browser and it will mount the disk for you, often auto-creating a mount path and cleaning it up when you're done, so you don't even have to think about it. Another way is fstab, which is a kind of config file that controls mounting devices. In here you can give default options for how you want drives to be mounted, and can even specify that you'd like some devices to be automatically mounted by the system on startup. This is actually an important part of how unix systems start, and how the root filesystem and other important ones get going. If you wanted your NTFS drive to always be available at a permanent location, you would edit this file to set that up. If this is something you wanted only periodically, then just clicking may be fine.

Permissions: Virtually all unix filesystems store the permissions of files and directories as a "user" and "group" that owns the files, and then a set of whether or not the owner can "read" "write" and "execute" the file, whether other members of the group can, and then whether everyone else can. If two people were on the same computer, these would allow a person to be able to see their own documents, but not see the documents by other users. Or maybe they can see them but can't make changes. And it also prevents random users of a system from changing important system configuration, when those config files are owned by the administrative user (called root by convention). Some config files will be read-only to normal users, and some contain secrets and so are permissioned so normal users can't even see them. But! NFTS doesn't follow these same conventions, so when mounting an NTFS drive on unix the driver has to produce a set of permissions that are unix-compatible, but it doesn't have anything to work off on the disk. So the person above was saying by default it assumes the safest option is to make all files owned by the user root, and so if the permissions are the only the owner can write the files, and the owner is root, this will mean it's effectively "read-only" to you. The terms uid and gid stand for "user ID" and "group ID", which are the numbers that represent a user in the data. User names are basically a convenience that allows us to give a name to a uid, but it's more efficient to store one number everywhere on disk for owner rather than a name.

So putting it all together, what they're suggesting is that you can use the /etc/fstab file, which has a very particular format, to specify default options when mounting your drive. These options include setting the uid option and gid option to your user's uid and gid, so that when the filesystem is mounted, it will appear that all the files are owned by you, so you'll have full permissions on them. They've assumed your uid and gid will be 1000 because that's a common convention, but if you're comfortable you can run the id command on the command line to output your actual uid and gid (you can ignore all the other groups your user is in for now)

They also mentioned that when mounting you can specify if you want to mount the filesystem as "read-only" or "read-write", etc. If you mount the whole filesystem read-only, then the write permissions stored on the individual files are ignored, basically. So if you were mounting with a command, or through fstab, you should make sure the rw option is present to clarify that you're looking for "read write" permissions on your mount.

That having been said, it's possible none of that is relevant to you if you're mounting the fs by just clicking in your file browser. One way to tell is if you right-click on some file you aren't allowed to edit and look at the properties there should be a Permissions tab thing. And it will list the owner of the file and what access you have. If those permissions are already set to be owned by you, then this uid thing is already taken care of for you by the file browser. In that case it might be something more fundamental to the NTFS filesystem, like the locks other people are talking about.

So those are some words and their meanings! Probably more than you wanted to know, but that's okay. I liked typing it

I don't know about this particular title, but I feel like Kickstarter games get a bit of a bad rap for taking a long time or not making it to release. But that's because the whole point of a Kickstarter game is that we, the public, are acting as the publisher. Putting up money in advance, making an investment, hoping for a great game.

And just like with traditional publishers, sometimes games take years and years to make, and some of your investments crumble and don't make it.

It's just that we the public rarely hear about a traditionally published game until it's already been in development for a while. Until it seems likely to succeed. We're not used to taking pitches while a game studio figures their shit out. And even then, some traditionally published games crash and burn too!

And that's all ignoring the fact that a bunch of crowdfunded games are typically by greener devs who maybe don't know how things are done. But what I'm saying is that even the normal game industry has long lead times and has some burn outs, it's just that normally an entire community hasn't built up around them, because they haven't even been announced yet.

I guess is what I'm saying is that publishing is hard and risky, and crowdfunding is collective publishing, not advanced purchasing. That doesn't immediately mean that anyone who tries and fails is a scam artist. Most of them probably spent that money trying their best for as long as they could, and nothing great came out the other side. That's just what business ventures look like, unfortunately.

Forth

I'm not sure I understand. I have an ergodox moonlander and while it's true there is no dedicated button for Function keys, that's what the layers are for. It's kind of the point of a configurable customizable keyboard.

So for me I have all my special symbols under my left hand while my right hand holds a special key. Takes some getting used to, but once I had practiced the special keys are actually closer than before because they're all the normal keys. Similarly I have arrow keys under the keys labeled 'hjkl' when another key is held. My Function Keys are all accessible with special key and the number keys.

It takes some tweaking and tuning to figure out the layouts you want, but the whole point of a keyboard like this is that you can tune it to be whatever you need it to be. Now, if you don't like to tinker and just want something out of the box, I get that, but even the default config has function keys, I think. Maybe you just didn't read about how it works?

Yeah basically! There's a reason most romantic comedies end with them starting to date. It's because that's the zany exciting bit. After that part, the next 40 years or whatever is a roommate who lives in your home with you, and you do taxes together, and you eat dinner together, and you go to your shared friend's homes to hang out, and maybe you teach weird little gremlins how to be humans, and you talk after work about how your day went, and what you're planning to do in the future.

And that stuff can be great! But looking like a model doesn't make that stuff much better. Even people who live with models probably "get over it" pretty quick. You can't be in awe 18 hours a day every day for 15 years. But, having a shared foundation of experiences and mutual respect does make those things easier. Liking each other's friends does too.

You can learn to love someone, and you can learn to find an attractive person unattractive through interaction.

Groceries, in particular, are more of an effect than a cause. Lots of people live without cars in New York City, or London, or Paris, or Toronto, or Tokyo, and they manage to eat. The reason you need to buy 7 days worth of food for two people all at once is because you live in a field far away from everything. "Getting Groceries" becomes a special trip, because, while driving, leaving the highway, stopping and parking are inconvenient.

As a pedestrian in a city, I was going to walk past 5 food stores on my way between work and home anyway, and it's really not problem to walk in and buy only what I ran out of yesterday, or some special item I wanted for tonight's dinner. It's simple to shop for 5 or 10 minutes, five times a week, rather than one hour once a week, and never need more than a single bag of groceries at a time. And rather than being inconvenient, it's actually great because I'm only buying what I need right now, the things I'm going to use as soon as I get home, so it's very simple.

Allergies could be tricky, yeah. If you're lucky the local shop, by nature of being smaller and more local, actually knows you and knows you need this stuff and stocks it because they know you'll buy it from them. But that's not a guarantee, for sure. That having been said, if the only people driving were people with corn allergies, the roads would be a much safer place!

I know it would be radical, but you could require that they release the server code open source. So it's not their responsibility to run it, but if the community wants to run it, they can.

Or, if that's complicated due to licensing etc, they could release a minimal server implementation that maybe doesn't scale the same way, but at least has the interfaces covered so the community can take it from there. The game could at least still be played.

Canada (or at least Ontario): The Barenaked Ladies.

I recently learned Americans consider them a One Hit Wonder for "One Week", but I could probably name like 9 hits just based off the radio, I never bought any of their albums or anything.

1. If I had a million dollars
2. Lovers in a dangerous time
3. Pinch me
4. Old apartment
5. Call and answer
6. Brian Wilson (only a live version for some reason)
7. Jane
8. It's all been done
9. Falling for the first time

Oh wow, it was actually nine! I swear I didn't go back and edit that, and also that I didn't look up a list online. There may even be others I forgot. That was just from me trying to remember songs or music videos of theirs!

Thank you for your honest and straightforward answer!

I imagine you're more sensitive to it, as someone in the community, but do you ever hear someone talking about their attraction to a 4 year old (for example, as someone outside your range) and think "that's so weird, I just don't get it"? Basically, I'm asking if you ever feel towards them the way that most people would feel towards you? (at least in terms of confusion, ignoring the hate). Or is it closer to feeling more like a preference, where you're more like "I guess I could see it, but it's just not for me", the way some guys might not find some celebrity attractive that other guys do find attractive.

Speaking of "deep child crush", I have a more direct question which could get into uncomfortable territory, so please feel free to not answer this one if it feels too invasive.

People who are into adults tend to have sexual or sexualized characteristics that they focus on. The classics would be "boobs" or "butts" or "legs" for people attracted to women (though of course there can be others), and "hands" or "butts" again or "forearms / shoulders /muscles" or "voice" or "hair" or "height" for women (though of course there can be others).

Many of those are post-pubescent features, probably not by accident. So, what features do pedophiles find attractive in kids? What separates some random kid from a crush?

This isn't surefire, but sometimes I'll double tap to zoom way too far in, but it'll put me in zooming mode and then I can zoom back out from there.

I don't know the answer to the title, so I'll answer the body. The answer is "it depends".

If you're talking to someone in a technical setting, then servers are the physical machines. The computers themselves, sitting in a room somewhere. Or maybe a virtual server that pretends to be a physical machine, but runs on a real server that sits in a room somewhere. Whereas a website is some location you can put into a web browser and get content that "feels" like it's all one thing.

The reason this distinction matters is because you can host multiple small websites on a single server. For example there's no reason a particular machine couldn't host 10 different lemmy instances, if it's got enough processing power.

But on the other hand a popular website may have its work spread across multiple servers. Maybe I've got a database server, which is a machine that only runs the database. And then maybe I have a few different web servers that actually serve "the webpage", but I've also got a cache server that stores part of the webpage and serves that when it can, etc. Websites like Facebook or Twitter are considered one website but have thousands and thousands of servers.

But if you're talking to someone in a non-technical setting, yeah they're basically the same.