Interesting perspective, never really looked at it like that, I’ve always just interacted with the corporatized bullshit implementations of Agile.

It seems Agile really did have a kernel of worker self management in it but the original people behind it didn’t have the right ideological framework to realize that this is what they’re trying to achieve.

Agile is the anarchism of software development: sounds nice on a high level but basically no theoretical foundation behind it and thus in practice everybody makes it whatever the fuck they want it to be.

Strange, usually things just work there considering the limited hardware variety. Is it an older Mac? I’m typing this on an M2 macbook and it works perfectly.

Anyway try to dig into the config and check if you’re using hardware rendering: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Firefox_Hardware_acceleration

If it turns out you’re using software rendering try forcing hardware rendering on: https://jamcity.helpshift.com/hc/en/6-genies-and-gems/faq/5737-how-do-i-enable-hardware-acceleration-on-my-browser/

Sounds to me like some hardware issue, I’ve literally never experienced any of this in the last 5 years on Firefox. My guess is considering it works fine with other browsers the graphics drivers are a bit wonky, or maybe Firefox is falling back to software rendering for some reason. Are you using Linux or Windows?

Wym? Youtube works just fine for me with uBlock Origin. Very rarely there’s some wonkiness but nothing unbearable.

For what I see as a helpdesk guy, most problems that are encountered origin from Windows being Windows, not tech knowleadge of some person.

Yeah but things just work by default more often on Windows than on Linux. “Linux being Linux” is also the most common cause of Linux problems.

Linux usually does give you the tools to fix problems more easily than Windows but that’s where the tech savviness comes in.

Just bail out, it wasn’t meant to be. I tried a similar thing with family a few times and they always went back to Windows.

Linux is unfortunately not for people that aren’t at least a bit tech savvy. If you insist on them using Linux you’re gonna be on call to fix their shit all the time.

Not sure what you mean exactly. The Windows workstation machine could be accessed remotely from anywhere. I mean sure you’re gonna have to hook it up to a monitor to set it up but after that you shouldn’t have to access it directly, at least not often.

I don’t like VMs because I need to allocate memory upfront for it, and considering it’s a Windows VM and depending on the dev work you’re doing on it you might need to give it 10Gb+.

If it’s at all possible for OP I’d recommend getting a separate physical workstation and then just remoting into it with your Linux machine, if you use VSCode the process is pretty much seamless, you use VSCode from your Linux machine normally while all the work is being done on the remote machine.

I very much do not give a shit whether Trump is rehabilitated or not, he’s an existential danger to many groups of people, if somebody decides to put a bullet in his head I’m not gonna cry over it.

Trump was rude and lacked ｄｅｃｏｒｕｍ so he made some wealthy suburbanites uncomfortable, and that is truly the worst crime you can commit in the USA.

You literally called one of the trailblazers of the entire field a “new age mystic”. I don’t really plan on taking you seriously anymore, thanks for all the kind words tho, take care.

Now stop being a redditbrained contradictory little shit and read my comment.

No, you wrote it all for nothing.

Damn you’re a complete grating asshole, I’m not reading all of that shit but I do know at least this is wrong:

You’re not going to find anyone actually employed in quantum theory or research espousing it.

Eugene Wigner, John von Neumann, Roger Penrose, Brian Josephson, Henry Stapp, Erwin Schrödinger (debatable, but he was questioning physicalism).

I do not have to provide you with definitions so that your stupid ideas make sense.

Damn you’re a feisty one.

In fact you do have to provide definitions, an “observation” in the context of quantum mechanics does not have a consensus definition and the definition heavily relies on your particular interpretation of quantum mechanics. One of these interpretations also includes consciousness, and if you want to be completely certain this particular interpretation is false you need your own coherent definition of consciousness that doesn’t call upon quantum mechanics. You don’t have such a thing, nobody does.

You’re locked in a belief system and you don’t even realize it.

No, you dumb fuck,

Thanks comrade, very nice of you.

You have to define it

No, everybody has to define it actually since it clearly exists and nobody really knows what it is. If you believe with certainty it doesn’t have anything to do with quantum collapse then you also must have a good idea what it actually is, and you just plain don’t.

Personally I’m agnostic about the whole thing and I don’t think any particular idea needs to be dismissed a priori because of entrenched beliefs.

So, by your definition, mystical stuff is just things we can’t explain right now.

My entire fucking point is that nobody can explain it properly and you grasping so tightly onto only one of the possible explanations is you having a strong belief system, same as religious people, not you doing a heckin good science think.

Nothing I’ve seen seems to imply it’s outside of our models.

It literally is tho. There is no mention of consciousness anywhere in either quantum mechanics or general relativity.

So either you give a real answer to their question of what you think consciousness is or you start listing the things you think are conscious until smarter minds can work out what connects the dots.

You haven’t given a real answer either though and neither has anybody else in the history of science, which is what I’m trying to say, nobody has a coherent answer but you’re pretending as if you do. You’re literally just asserting your claims without backing anything up.

We can easily explain how a physical system produces consciousness.

We literally can’t do that at all though, not even close.

Because that’s literally a basic requirment of science.

How? Science is based on making models from empirical observations about the world and yourself, one of these empirical observations is the observation that your phenomenal consciousness actually exists, seemingly in opposition to the physical world, maybe we should perhaps include that fact in our models?

Also, you call it reductive. I don’t think it’s reductive.

It’s literally how that category of metaphysical thought is called, it’s an actual philosophical term.