I am wondering though: when does one pick C3 for a task/problem?

With that said, I ran into an age-old problem: sleep.

(For reference, I have an AMD Ryzen CPU, RTX 4070 super GPU and some low-end motherboard and I am using the proprietary nvidia drivers.)

I searched the web for hours and tried a lot of things, including different kernels, but nothing helped. In the end, after I couldn't find anything new on forums, reddit, blog posts, etc, I asked chatgpt for some ideas.

It had me change BIOS settings, kernel params, nvidia module params (or something like that - I'm not well versed in this topic tbh), etc, but in some way waking up from sleep still did not work.

After it suggested some undocumented kernel param with the nvidia kernel module, I said that's it, let's try something else and reinstalled with Gnome.

To my surprise, it worked without issue. I've been using it like this for weeks now.

I have no idea if the explanation is good or not but chatgpt said it's because my hardware + proprietary nvidia driver + plasma wayland was a bad combination.

> To my surprise, it worked without issue. I've been using it like this for weeks now.

> I have no idea if the explanation is good or not but chatgpt said it's because my hardware + proprietary nvidia driver + plasma wayland was a bad combination.

GNOME has more paid devs than KDE and therefore has better quality overall. It sucks as I love KDE's UX but I had rough patches using it as well.

Evidence suggests that chronic sensory stimulation via excessive exposure to screen time may affect brain development in negative ways. Excessive smartphone use may increase the risk [...]

Do they consider "screen time" only to be "smartphone use"? Is it better to use a tablet? Or PC / laptop? What if I use a 6.7" screen with my computer? Does it count as "bad" screen time?

Also, do they take into account what you do on said screen? Reading a book, learning something or binging tiktok videos, watching the facade people put up on facebook / insta don't sound the same to me.

I can see the proper cancer that screens cause to small children development. Heck, some parents are proud how 'digital' their kids are, like scrolling through social media videos is some hard earned skill only few posses. What I see is failed parenting, and I call it like that. Then you look at the mood swings of those kids, how they behave socially, what they eat etc. and its often a sad story. Then you look at parents glued to phones themselves, often overweight, living unhappy unfulfilled lives, and it starts making sense (broad generalization here of course, but I see it very often among peers & a bit younger).

Kids ain't adults for sure but screen time, if not done for actual work or learning, eats time we could be actually doing something with our life. Relaxing, sporting, socializing, learning new skills, making ourselves properly happy. That ain't happening in front of screen, any screen. The energy recharge and 'soul' regeneration that me and everybody else I know experience in nature and wilderness can't be achieved in any other way. Screen time also sets unrealistic expectations on how 'baseline' of normal daily life should be with its always-stimulated-neocortex as such, no wonder kids have attention issues with 'boring' stuff that regular life simply is.

I may be a luddite re this despite being software dev, but in this case happy to be one since I've figured my path to happy fulfilled life, and it sure as hell doesn't need more screen time, nor any made up justifications for some form of addiction to such.

People are quick nowadays (or always have been) to bring out the good old „todays kids are rotten to the core“ trope - just because it’s now you who is old and doesn’t get how the world moved on, doesn’t mean it’s any different to the centuries of complaining about the youth before us.

I wasted thousands of hours as a kid on unproductive stuff - I don’t see it as being much different to what kids do today.

Reading can absolutely have an impact on the eyes. Close distance reading as well as lack of natural light seem to be conditions that can favor e.g. myopia.

In general it’s good to take care of your eyes, like you do for the rest of the body and doing anything 8h+ without pause is bad.

But concluding that there is some kind of danger associated with reading is nonsense. Almost anything else you do is more dangerous.

Not convinced that the study you posted is evidence of reading being dangerous: >This is a cross-sectional study and therefore causal relationship could not be determined. The data analyzed in the study were drawn from a questionnaire study conducted about 40 years ago

To include so many variations of screen would complicate a lot the study, and without a prior about why it should matter, you are probably safer starting with something more homogeneous.

I'm fairly confident this is not a safe assumption.

> To include so many variations of screen would complicate a lot the study

How so, though?

> without a prior about why it should matter, you are probably safer starting with something more homogeneous.

That's not very scientific, is it? There's no prior as to why it shouldn't matter, which is what the authors seem to think.

Presumably you don’t think that all the white collar workers who aren’t in tech spend all of their work-hours scrolling tiktok/etc.?

It's not simpler as in less features.

This is 100% a spite move. They could have let their iPad app run on the Vision Pro but instead disabled it.

I don’t remember the numbers well enough to quote it but it’s barely anything. I recommend to look it up.

And the biggest surprise for me was that older videos get even less.

The money isn't great by itself but it's still money coming in too.