With Linux, you select the right tool to the job. The ones given to you out the gate depending on what you install (Mint vs Arch, for instance) might be enough for all your needs, and you get to pick and choose starting gear. If you need more tools after the fact, you have a software center to install flatpacks for anything generic you may want, and the terminal lets you go wild if there's anything special not covered you need modified. There's manual pages, and the forms are last resort for most.
On Windows, you are given a generic toolset. Usually it works, but sometimes they just break for no discernable reason. You can call Microsoft for support, but good luck talking to a human. You can't pick a different starting toolset, and while you can install software (by using a web browser and hoping you don't get phished), it's difficult to change underlying components without getting blocked by the OS or breaking a core function. Windows forums are quite a wasteland, and almost nothing is documented for the user.
I think the limiting factor for that one is availability depending on region. In the US the B580 is an amazing budget card, but AMD has a better distribution network in say LATAM nations.
Might just be a personal perspective, but the majority of Nvidia cards that I've seen purchased in my community (Not in germany tho) are second hand - most aren't buying the 50 series due to their horrible pricing. People are buying AMD cards new though due to their good value proposition.
That's difficult to answer, because both groups use the social shield of religious identity (or more accurately conflating their views with religion to their followers) as a method to both deflect criticism from within their bases and to appeal as a legitimate representative to all who practice the faith (even if their appeal is hypocritical and baseless).
I agree with you that those abuses don't undermine the concepts and values placed forward by the root faith (as mentioned in my prior comment, religion can serve beneficial/personal value components within a society), but a leader's ability to wield religion within the halls of governance taints the religion's "purity" among the populace as a whole. As the lies are perpetuated through generations, some concepts preached by these bad influences can become accepted or even indoctrinated as true values.
So again, tricky question to answer. In my personal opinion, the only way to disarm this particular scenario is to maintain a secular form of governance and keep religion only as a personal or communal liberty away from any decision made at a government level (appeal to empirical evidence or logical conclusions instead), but there are holes in that idea as well. Dang.
While I respect your devotion to your faith as a means of promoting goodwill, I vehemently disagree that faith should serve as any integral component for a just society. Theocracies allow for plenty of corruption, manipulation of history and academia, sanctioned death, and abuse of their populations simply under other names and with varying methods.
Religion can be an accepted component of one's society. It should never serve as the bedrock of a society, lest it be seized and contorted by the next aspirational oligarchs seeking to write themselves in as "more equal than the others".
Also that monopoly has been somewhat eliminated with the increasing development of technology that allows for killing without consequences. Drones, rigged explosives, remote detonation, incendiary devices, autonomous firearms, so on. (Developments of improvised firearms, explosives, and incendiary devices with common materials has also contributed to this, along with DIY drone construction).
At this point the correcting factor is if a state is able to control the collective perception or will of a population to a point where pacification is possible (China or UK's surveillance states, for instance). But that is not a viable long term solution due to it simply bottling the frustrations of the populace rather than extinguishing them.
After all, in JFK's famous words, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable". With ideas able to be spread anywhere, no ideal can be stamped out for good, on any segment of the ideological spectrum.
Sucks for those who wish for a cooperative world, I suppose.
You'd just be adding additional weight, removing some ergonomics (as seen with how shit the switch grips are in handheld play), and adding many points of failure for things to break.
I would bet my steam library that having detachable controllers for the steam deck would have it fail most of the impact tests they do for QA, and result in more returns due to people accidentally breaking them.
Probably could print the shell and buttons, would be quite difficult to print the wristband, and the screen, PCB, storage and battery would all have to be commodity components. Doable though.
The source code's just as transparent, and the fundamental concepts and implementations aren't going to vanish at all. If we get a future CarbonOS, so be it, but I doubt that will be in any near future scenario.
I'm referring to your prior comments and history speaking in communities. The most recent one I remember involved Portal, Half-life, and counterstrike.
You're not at Lembot_0005 level comments yet tho, so that's good.
The way Valve set up the Deck is that the only storage initialized is the internal SSD and the SD card in big picture mode (home menu) which makes sense if you're playing on the go - you're not going to hold an external HDD in your offhand on the plane lol.
I believe using the dock doesn't have any impact on how the Deck handles drives either, the official FAQ mentions it's more akin to "plugging an external USB hub", so that won't solve the automount issue.
"Sir, the 17 pounder won't fit!"
"Put it in sideways."
"The radio won't fit!"
"Cut a hole in the back and have it stick out the back."
"The engine's no good!"
"Grab 5 car engines and stick them in together."