KrumpetPirate

For the targeted 'Grandparent' user, this isn't really an issue. I've had my grandparents on Ubuntu for three years now and they watch Netflix on it all the time, thing is that their internet in rural America isn't all that great anyways, so 1080p/4k would never work regardless of this. Totally worth me not having to fix their old windows machine all the time.

But that sweet sweet AUR

To be fair, it's only a panel layout not an actual DE.

This would be because Linux expects the hardware clock to be in UTC while Windows expects it to be Local Time. You can either edit the registry to tell it to use UTC or just tell it not to update the clock over the net.

Perhaps DisplayFusion would help? I've never seen these sorts of issues, but I've been running DisplayFusion on my Windows 10 installation since day 1.

I for one would be furious if I can't get my hands on Vega because of the miners. I'm all for the concept of cryptocurrency, but frankly I've had enough of the GPU shortages.

I have a Unity desktop for my development vm at work but I run Gnome everywhere else. I'm glad they will actually be contributing (theoretically) back to the rest of the linux community. They have been missing that for a while now. Also Ubuntu GNOME was a pain to use. Hopefully the full Gnome treatment under Ubuntu proper will be better. Arch for life

Typically transistor sizes, though transistor structure can vary.

My question is whether the improved profit margins for high end cards gets swallowed by mid range numbers. I have never seen anything to indicate that this is the case however.

Developing a drug/hooker problem would have been WAY cheaper than that rig.

I agree, something must be done. But it already has been done - Adblock. Problem is that Adblock is not a perfect solution to the problem either as it's a all or none kind of switch unless the user configures it to enable content from trusted sources. I wouldn't say the average user would do that. You have to remember that most of the people on this forum are not likely to fall under "the average user" category. The average user just block the ads, or even worse just lets the annoying ones continue. I agree that it is a massive flaw. I just don't see that a regulatory entity can solve this issue since by and large most of these special regulatory committee organizations can easily be corrupted or bought out. I'm not saying a "free-market" solution exists either nor am I proposing a better idea than what you have said here, I just don't trust government at large to do the right thing. Even if the regulatory commission starts out with good intentions, all it would take would be one corrupt politician to appoint one advertising lobbyist to the committee and it is undone. Even if you were to get the largest 80% of the advertising companies to agree to common practices to avoid bad advertisements there would still be that bottom 20% to create bad ads so I see it as a problem that will continue no matter what is done. The only thing you can do is hope that people have enough common sense to stop clicking on the bad ads and hope that pushes them out of the market. However I do believe you'll agree that is the least likely solution to the problem. I will say though that I find Google's efforts (however self-serving) laudable. It *might* make some people turn those ad-blockers off.

I find your readiness to regulate and legislate disturbing... I recognize that there are functions that government at large is best at dealing with, but the instant that we allow government even a modicum of independent control over how content is displayed over literally the best thing that the human race has ever invented is the instant we lose the freedom to express and communicate freely with the potential of limiting humanity's full potential. Yes there is shady shit on the internet, yes there is content that represents literally the worst practices out there, but by and large I would take these facets of the internet in exchange for the pure creativity and expression that the internet allows. I recognize also that corporations do not have your best interest at heart. They will take advantage of your privacy and privilege to sell more product. That is their sole function of existence is to make more money. Please do not take my anti-legislative ideal to mean that I trust corporations at large to do the right thing either.

Whom do you propose should do the vetting process exactly? The advertisers, the websites/content creators, the government? Advertisers won't, content creators shouldn't (less time spent actually creating a product), and my God that would be a nightmare... I agree that there should be some restraint used by advertisers, but it's literally never going to happen. The more and more people there are on this planet, there will be a growing number of D-bags that will use/create invasive pop-up and cover ads with auto play media to push ponzy schemes and snake oil. It is quite literally unavoidable.

How do you propose we pay for all of our lawyers then? Those people deserve a summer house in the hamptons after all.

Seriously guys, why would the class action lawsuit filed in America have anything to do with other countries? I get it, America sucks, let's all hate on them, stupid Americans but seriously guys use your heads.