grallo

joined 2 years ago
[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

No, I normally don't use emacs as browser.

  • NixOS
  • Hyprland
  • Waybar
  • Dracula

--

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago

Auf der ersten Sicht dachte ich, ich wäre irgendwie auf der Lasesanwendung gelandet und mir würde ein gesponserter Pfosten angezeigt.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

No need to be sorry, thanks for the input!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

May have found it in a header file: NautilusListIconSize in nautilus/src/nautilus-enums.h. I might try to add a smaller icon size level

Edit: Or maybe I better play around with margins/paddings of rows/cells. They seem to be too large in my screenshot, comparing it with yours.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Dconf editor lets me define the default list view size, but does not allow to set smaller list view size than in my screenshot.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

Thanks, but I try to avoid nemo at the moment, as I face a problem of not being able to paste images of a specific types into it. Else it is a good program!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (3 children)

No, the size in the screenshot is lowest size available. I use version 45.2.1, although only installed Nautilus, not the full GNOME shell.

 

Hello guys, I have a question about GNOME Nautilus and the sizes of icons in list view. In the included screenshot, you can see the list view of my home folder with lowest icon size. However, the entries are still rather tall compared to other file managers. To reduce the need of scrolling, I would like to reduce the icon size further. Is there any way to do this? Thanks!

Edit: The issue is resolved now. I found out, that padding is too large in the theme I use. The issue was already fixed upstream, only had to apply one commit to fix.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Wir können ja einfach alle zusammenlegen und alle fossilen Brenstoffe der Welt kaufen, die wir dann unter freiem Himmel verbrennen. Dadurch würden durch erhöhte Nachfrage die Preise steigen und die Wirtschaft würde florieren, weil wir einfach dtrozdem alles weiterkaufen. Ich glaub so könnten wir noch echt viel aus der Wirtschaft rausholen und unser verbleibendes Budget sehr sinvoll nutzen bevor alles abfackelt, einfriert oder absäuft.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Scheinbar sind halt große Teile der Fluginfrastruktur ökonomisch effizient, jedoch nicht wirklich Ressourceneffizient. Umwelt- und Klimakosten werden auch nicht ausreichend vom Markt wiedergespiegelt. Um Ressourcenfreundlicher zu werden, muss die Flugbranche eben Ressourcen einsparen. Ob man für das oben genannte Problem wirklich überall teure Techniker einstellen muss, oder sich da eine andere Lösung finden lässt, die die ökonomischen Kosten weniger drastisch erhöht, kann ich dir nicht sagen. Was ich dir aber sagen kann, ist dass die ökonomischen Kosten der Umwelt schnurzpiepegal sind. Zu diesem Zeitpunkt, an dem der Klimawandel bereits weit fortgeschritten ist und die Klimaforschung der letzen 50 Jahre den menschengemachten Effekt auf Klima- sowie Umweltzerstörung wie einen großen Unfall über Jahrzehnte hinweg verfolgt, müssen wir endlich mit diesem aBeR dIe WiRtScHaFt aufhöhren.

Für einen Mittelweg ist halt leider inzwischen zu spät.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (14 children)

If you don't use a client with certain signature, the web request will end in different response, i. E. an empty response,, as if your client had a certain signature. Please correct me if I am wrong, though.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

And this does not evenention the owners of companies. Of courae, not all company owners make fortunes of money, but the ones that do, are very relevant

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

Die Technologie Blockchain ist auch gekommen um zu bleiben, nur eben 99% der derzeitigen Blockchain-Projekte nicht.

 

Reddit will not reverse its decision in my opinion. Obviously, they are in financial trouble and need money, become profitable, else this whole story would not have taken place this way.

Tech companies have collected massive amounts of user data for years, in hope that this something like "digital gold". Even though, that in time of collection, data was not yet very useful, advancing fields of big data and machine learning suggested future value of being in power of all this data. Up to a few years ago, personalized marketing was the main way to monetize this "digital gold", but in times of advancing large LLMs, which are trained at least partially by data scraped from social media APIs, this may change. Economically even worse performing twitter announced a similar change to their API pricing earlier, now Reddit jumps into the same boat.

However, the API is also used by third party app developers, which interfere with the "traditional" way to monetize user data: personalized ads. This makes them a good scapegoat to draw attention away from the real new API customer audience: LLM corporations. With AI being so hyped, I guess this is where the financial guys smell the big money. And the image of being a shitty, ad-money hungry company is pretty common these days, but being an AI training center is not and therefore more risky.

At the end, there is a third category of very relevant current API users: mod tools and bots, which are pretty important for quality/moderation of content. It will be really interesting to see the long term consequences of this category not having restricted or no access to API anymore. If moderators back down, who will replace them? What happens to content quality? Will reduced content quality infer with the expereience of the average joe?

Let's see! In some way, I just hope reddit fails, because I would like to see the fediverse grow more. Really love the idea!

view more: next ›