aaaa

Which one?

WSL is pretty good these days. Dual boot with Windows is still a pretty risky move with how easily Windows will overwrite your boot loader. I usually recommend you pick one os or the other rather than dual boot, so I'm in favor of WSL or virtualbox. Personally, I have never cared for needing to reboot just to switch operating systems. I tend to stick with one and the second one does nothing but take up disk partition space.

WSL lets you run both simultaneously without rebooting. Virtualbox lets you do the same with extra setup. Virtualbox makes it easier to do GUI setups than WSL does, and the network configuration is a little more obvious.

The best option is to get a second machine so you can run both. If that's not an option, virtualbox is the better choice for learning. If you just want a Linux environment on your existing setup (similar to using a Mac) then WSL is usually good enough

I want an instance already established, very populated, and proven to last long term, so I don't have to create another account

I'm shocked at what an unpopular thought this is. Like... If you go out in public, there's a very real risk that people in public will see you. If that's a concern you have, then you should take steps to not be seen in public. To me, that would mean not making my presence obvious when visiting a bar.

Camera or not, if people are looking for you, they will find ways to look for you in public places. You should always assume you're being watched, because you probably already are.

I have such bad things to say about recruiters. They generally don't have a clue about any of the skills related to the jobs I'm after, and they take a huge cut of the pay the entire time I'm working the job.

On the other hand, the two best jobs (highest pay and best working environment) I've had in my career, I got through recruiters, so I acknowledge them as a useful business when it works out. The last one has led to the company buying my contract and hiring me directly for the past 12 years

Right, that's really more of a Steam issue than a Bethesda issue. I get why Valve and Bethesda don't want to provide customer support for old versions, but they don't have to. People have been figuring out their own problems when using obsolete systems or software for a long time.

I have no issue with Steam pushing the updates and encouraging you to take them, but giving no way to decline is a pretty poor user experience. Especially when we already know they keep old versions on their servers, as people have made guides on how to downgrade with Steam

The mods that weren't backwards compatible were primarily the ones that depended on the script extender. This was an unsupported executable that expanded on the commands available to the scripts in the mods.

Not to say unsupported is bad, but everyone was well aware that if they depended on the script extender, they would break if the game updated at all. The biggest mods avoided that dependency for exactly this reason, and really didn't have any trouble. (Sim Settlements still worked the entire time, for example)

And like usual, the community stepped up and updated their unsupported extension quickly, ready for this outcome.

If you made a mod that depends on the script extender and then quit playing the game or supporting your mod, that was a choice you made as a modder. Meanwhile there's mods that haven't seen an update in 8 years that continue to work without issue.

The mods that updated for the first update were already updated within 24 hours of the next one.

The only mods that are still broken now are mods that were made and maintained by people who have stopped playing the game some time ago.

And even most of those still work, if they didn't rely on the script extender

Eh? I thought we had the date of this update a couple of weeks in advance. I don't think any more notice would have helped get the mods updated faster when many of the modders just don't play anymore

Yes, if you want to see Hackernews posts, get them from Hackernews yourself. Reposting to Lemmy just adds more posts with zero engagement that new users will see and be put off of the site for

Several months ago we had three different instances with their own Hackernews communities and their own repost bots posting the exact same things, with zero discussion.

Lemmy needs more actual discussion, and fewer bots adding noise to the feed.

A lot of people talk about the decentralization being a barrier of entry, but I don't think it is.

Generally speaking, your average social media user won't care about that one way or the other. You tell them an instance to look at, they will check it out.

Where I think it goes wrong is the general Lemmy attitude of curating your own feed. Your average Lemmy user will say the best part is that you just block the communities and instances that you don't want to see.

Your average social media user on the other hand, doesn't want to spend an hour or a month blocking people and communities to make the site useable. Most folks will come in, see a feed full of tech bros, repost bots with zero discussion, 30 different fetish porn communities, Star Trek memes, and bottom of the barrel shitposts, and they'll just leave.

The only way I see Lemmy overcoming this is for instance admins to heavily curate the default experience so the feed is friendlier to new users. This would likely require some more tools in place to allow for this, possibly even a default block list that users can customize after they are already drawn in

Also the sorting could be better.

You don't have to share your library with your friends. You can keep all that shit to yourself