bleepbloopbop [they/them]

  • 0 Posts
  • 18 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: October 14th, 2021

help-circle
  • its the other way around for those people: they have a beard because they stopped shaving, not because they wanted a nice looking beard.

    tbh there is a part of me that resents this “ew you grow facial hair and don’t shave around the edges to create sharp lines” view though. Its like women feeling they have to shave their legs or pits, it’s BS and people shouldn’t be judged for literally just how their body naturally is. Its not like there’s a legitimate sanitary reason for shaving legs or necks.






  • https://github.com/brunonova/nautilus-admin

    This is unmaintained, so it may not work with the latest ubuntu, but it is an extension to the default ubuntu file manager that does some of what you want

    As for your title question, unfortunately ubuntu/gnome don’t seem to make this easy. On some DEs you can just right click and go find the shortcut properties sorta like on windows. Others have noted some good reasons why GUI apps shouldn’t run as root, but you’re right that sometimes it’s necessary, or simply the easiest/most expedient way to do things.

    You can accomplish what you ask using a little shell script though, which you could bind to a keyboard shortcut or something. I may elaborate further but basically:

    readlink /proc/"$( xprop _NET_WM_PID | sed 's/_NET_WM_PID(CARDINAL) = //')"/exe

    and then clicking on the window you want to ID will attempt to identify the binary it’s running. then you could either display it in a popup using zenity, or write it directly to the clipboard using xclip (or wl-copy I think for wayland distros)

    I really like setting up little shortcut scripts like this with zenity for user input, and usually the notification tray or clipboard for output


  • You’ll run into issues and not many people will be able to help. Debian, Fedora, and Ubuntu seem to be the popular distros rn for most people.

    Agree with the broader conclusion that a first time linux user should probably avoid gentoo, arch, whatever, but its not because nobody will be able to help you, more just that the expected level of polish is a bit less.

    It isn’t considered a huge inconvenience to have to use the CLI or edit a config file by arch users, but for ubuntu especially they are more bent on building something that “just works” for most people (with the tradeoff being it’s a commercially exploited product, and the innards of GNOME and the like tend to be more of a black box and less tweakable than say, a tiling WM)

    But if you do want to dive in and learn how more of the internals work and how to configure things at a lower level, you will find a lot of help with issues, and very detailed documentation for a lot more things in Arch, vs Ubuntu. I find the ubuntu community online to be sort of a middle ground between the detailed technical help I’ve gotten from Arch communities, and the “here’s some magic steps that worked for me, no idea why” type of thing that is prevalent on windows support communities.

    Which isn’t to say ubuntu people aren’t helpful, but the critical mass of users isn’t the only thing that matters, it also helps if the users are knowledgeable, and friendly (some arch people fail at this, though I’ve lucked out and really not had any bad experiences)









  • The key difference is the use of malted barley/hops for fermentation in production. If those are used (and probably some other requirements met, like being made in a brewery?) it can be classified as a Malt Beverage (a category that includes beer), putting it under TTB (who now regulate alcohol and tobacco moreso than ATF), and the correspondingly lax labeling requirements.

    Most NA beer/Seltzers fall under this, and (my speculation from this point on) you probably won’t see many N/A versions of the canned mixed drinks or vodka seltzers because they’d have to comply with a whole different set of rules since the NA version wouldn’t be a Malt Beverage. Its possible that the Athletic/Partake examples you cite simply didn’t see any benefit to getting certified as a brewery or added the nutrition label voluntarily, or were required to because they made some specific nutritional claim elsewhere on the can.

    If coca cola wanted to make what was basically a soda, but integrate a fermented malt/hop component, I suppose they could maybe get away with that. But I think the TTB would shoot them down if it was a miniscule amount of malt/hop, and honestly I’m not convinced that it’d be at all worth the effort, since the facilities used would be regulated as breweries, and the formula would be subject to TTB approval, all just to avoid a nutrition label?

    Another fun fact, it seems like beverages with no significant amount of any nutrient, vitamin, or mineral could probably get away without a label too. Not sure how hard that would be to achieve without just making it water though lol

    See Slide 22 here: https://www.ttb.gov/images/pdfs/TTB_Boot_Camp_for_Brewers-_Nontraditional_Products.pdf

    And the linked rulings from TTB: https://www.ttb.gov/images/pdfs/rulings/2008-3.pdf and FDA: https://www.fda.gov/media/90473/download