It depends which features you need, but interestingly Google has another, lighter weight gallery app called Google Gallery that does not have any cloud features built in.
I would have liked to have seen if there was any difference in the effects over time. I think it is easy to find something that helps with anxiety in the short term, but over enough time habituation, tolerance, and dependence can develop to most substances.
> I wonder if there's some nuance missed here. The natural follow-up question in my head is: can the scientific method ever support a supernatural explanation? What could such an explanation look like? How could it have predictive power whilst maintaining its supernaturalness?
In principle religious prophecy could fit the bill. You could imagine a surprising and unambiguous religious prophecy about a future event, such as that the Yellowstone Caldera will erupt in February of 2025. If a series of such prophecies were successfully made about various events spanning a variety of disciplines or topics, each attributing the knowledge to the same deity, it would be difficult for me to not attribute the predictions to the supernatural.
In practice though, religious prophecy tends to either fail in being surprising or in being unambiguous. And when it is not unambiguous, it is not falsifiable.
edit: I would also add that it is important that the prophecy be about something that is independently verifiable as well.
Religious prophecy is an interesting example. It highlights the distinction between "explanation" and "prediction". Here, the explanation takes the form of a hypothesis that there is an omniscient deity. Is this a falsifiable hypothesis? Yes we can point to the accuracy of the predictions as an argument in its favour, but that doesn't differentiate between the deity hypothesis and - for example - an alien species with advanced predictive power that lives secretly among us. And if there were other tests that could be used to distinguish the deity hypothesis from alternatives, then I feel that the deity is behaving within the laws of nature.
Gentoo has an amazingly awesome feature where you can maintain your own patches against packages in the Gentoo package system [1]. This feature can be useful when the corresponding upstream project is on life support, obstinate, you have eccentric desires, or otherwise your (or someone else's) patch has not been accepted upstream. The patched package will still continue to automatically receive updates with the patch automatically applied over time (at least as long as the patch can be applied without errors -- some maintenance may be required).
NixOS—or more properly Nixpkgs—certainly does. (I expect Guix does as well, I’ve just never used it.) It’s even cooler when the distro being essentially a build system with an artifact cache means you can still use premade binaries for anything that you haven’t patched.
This falls out as a composition of two features. First, the default package build scripts support (and it’s a good practice to make your customization also support) an attribute called “patches”, containing, well, the patches that are applied to the unpacked source before configuring it. Second, Nixpkgs allows you to reach down into any package and mess with its attributes; NixOS further wires that up to a composable option. The result looks something like this:
(Here `prev` is the package set just before the customization in question is applied, useful for obvious reasons; while `final` is the package set after all the customizations have been applied, courtesy of lazy evaluation. Why’s that useful? Suppose you want to refer to some other package, say to add it as a dependency, and don’t want to depend on any customizations to it being applied before yours. What happens if you mess up and the customizations depend on each other? Well, what do you think happens when you mess up recursion in a huge chunk of pervasively recursive, pervasively lazy code, most of which you haven’t read. Ugh.)
It is labeled correctly on his map, but he is recorded as saying something incorrect in the article:
> Also Baffin Island in Greenland. So few people have been to that part of the world.
Baffin Island is in Canada. Since this would be something silly for a cartographer to get wrong, I wonder if he didn't actually say "Baffin Island and Greenland" and his response was incorrectly transcripted.
FWIW, I've worked with professional cartographers, and a huge part of their focus was designing _how_ the information was displayed. They weren't specifically experts on the geography itself, though naturally they did have some steong knowledge there.
The tearing situation has also recently improved [1,2,3] in X.org, including your cited use case of multiple, rotated monitors, and even if you are not using a compositor, although these improvements are only present in the latest master branch and aren't in any release and thus not shipped by most Linux distributions. I'm sure that the argument could be made about how Wayland still solves the tearing problem more optimally, and I think you should stick with Wayland if you are happy with it, but the tearing situation has improved dramatically on the X side of things since Wayland as well.
Tearing has more-or-less been fixed [1,2,3] in the latest version of X.org, although these changes are only present in the latest master branch and aren't in any official release and thus not shipped by most Linux distributions. I'm sure the argument could be made about how these are just more kluges and how Wayland solves this problem more optimally, but the argument to switch to Wayland to not experience anymore tearing is weaker than it has ever been.
