michaelmrose
Born on August 28, 2014•10867 Karma
This doesn't appear to be even slightly tenable. The amount of sugar one consumes in a normal serving of fruit if not added to the massive amount we actually consume wouldn't be even slightly unhealthy.
It is very hard, by contrast, to say a person can eat "too much veggies", unless they are doing something crazy like eating extreme amounts of the same greens high in oxalates or something.
Basically, enjoy a fruit or two a day, if you like them. Or don't. But you aren't "eating healthy" just because you eat a lot of fruit, nor are you eating unhealthily if you eat zero fruit.
It is without meaning to compare incoherent dietary ideas like 100% veggies or 100% fruits.
In both cases, you probably need to be rebalancing and not adding things, but, for the same reason, it is sensible to err on the side of much more veggies than fruits. However, because fruit tastes like candy (and perhaps because you don't have to cook them, generally), people reach for adding more fruit to their diets, and this is likely sub-optimal. You should almost certainly be eating much more vegetables than you should be eating fruit. I.e. I'd say healthy is more like 80% veggie, 20% fruit, if you are putting them in the same category.
Maybe 50/50 is perfectly good too, but it seems pretty clear 100% fruit and 0% veggie is the worst possible choice, but 100% veggie and 0% fruit is perfectly fine. This should bring into question the appropriateness of the label "healthy" for fruit.
I'm personally very dubious of the claim. This has basically never been supported because x treats all screens as one big screen unless you run multiple X screens which disallows moving Windows between screens which is a pretty big barrier to normal usage
Is it? Or is it forgotten?
Around 1994 I had a Pentium 133 with 16MB. In it a Diamond Speedstar 24(Pro?) (Tseng ET 4k) Vesa Local Bus, some ISA Trident 8900, and an ISA Hercules, driving one 17", one 15", and the Hercules at something like 12" IIRC. One could choose in the BIOS which "GPU" ...err... frame buffer should have priority at boot, or rather which slot, so when you've chosen VLB it took that, and the others were a matter of the OS to initalize and drive way after boot.
At the time I compared 386BSD, NetBSD, SLS(Softlanding Systems), early Slackware and SuSE, and lo and behold, I could move windows across all of them on all of them!1!!
With proudly created custom modelines for all of them, even the Hercules, with different Hz & DPI for each screen.
Though it didn't really make sense, because X on the Hercules was very laggy and jerky, coz' 8-Bit ISA. Was more useful for syslogs and debugger.
Anyways, it worked, even if only as POC, to show off.
Now that wasn't Xorg, but XFree86, but still?
1994. Worky, worky!
IIRC that also applied to Accelerated-X, at least for the Tseng and Trident.
Didn't try the Hercules with X then.
May I submit that it is more likely that you are speaking of 1998 instead of 94 rather than this entire technology working differently.
No. I'm not pulling this out of thin air, or misremembering. It wasn't easy, and it wasn't in the manpages, or only some of it. It was rather involved, and didn't work on first try. Not only that X-thing, but also which TTY/VT was on which head for tailing syslogs, std-error, and whatnot else. But it worked. And with no X on the Hercules, just between the Trident and Tseng, even reasonably fast.
I remember exactly because I moved shortly after that. I also remember which relief Xinerama brought me, when it appeared :-)
Edit: I also remember frying the Hercules and the attached screen with both of them giving me the magic blue smoke, because I've overdriven them a little. But it didn't matter, because that was already abandoned cybertrash at the time, used, and collected just for fun :-)
Yep. I remember that pride very clearly. I'm also so glad I never have to do that math ever again.
> SLS(Softlanding Systems)
I'd never heard of this one. If the claim that its slogan was "Gentle Touchdowns for DOS Bailouts" is true, then that's a really great pairing of distro name and slogan.
Isn't that fun? https://nyanpasu64.gitlab.io/blog/crt-modeline-cvt-interlaci... :-)
TBH I've been mostly unimpressed with the early Linuxen. At the time they had almost nothing which NetBSD didn't have, and I knew that really well. Gentoo 'ricing' well.
But it was clear that there was momentum behind the Linux hype. It was on CD-Roms in magazines, in book stores. While *BSD wasn't known generally, just by some guys in Universities, or similar. Bad marketing. FUD because lawsuits, and whatnot else.
Such BSD, so sad...
Hmm.
I'm not sure what windowing system you've been using over the past ~thirty years, but you seem to be unaware of both Xinerama (released in the late 1990s) and XRandR (version 1.2 [0] of which was released in like 2006). Maybe you've been using an X11 implementation provided by some proprietary *NIX for all of these years, but whatever you've been using, it has certainly been neither XFree86 or xorg.
> The only exception is that monitors that support variable refresh rates may be able to offer this feature in multiple monitor configuration subject to software and hardware options.
1) Monitors have been able to support multiple refresh rates for ages. This is a big part of why EDID and friends exists.
2) I note that VESA standardized Adaptive Sync in ~2009, and that VRR-supporting monitors were extremely uncommon in the consumer space until the introduction of GSync and the addition of Adaptive Sync to the DisplayPort standard... which both happened in ~2014. Add to that the fact that my secondary monitor does not support VRR, and it becomes very clear that VRR is not a prereq for driving multiple monitors at different refresh rates.
[0] IIRC, 1.2 is the version that gave it feature parity with Xinerama
amdgpu + x11 + xfwm4
$ xrandr | grep -A1 ' connected' | sed 's/^/ /'
eDP connected 1920x1200+0+240 (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) 286mm x 178mm
1920x1200 60.03*+ 40.02
--
DisplayPort-0 connected primary 2560x1440+1920+0 (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) 597mm x 336mm
2560x1440 59.95 + 200.00* 179.96 144.01 120.00
https://usafacts.org/articles/how-have-cancer-rates-changed-...
>However, even though the overall number of cases rises as the population grows, fewer people are getting and dying from cancer. Between 2000 and 2021, the incidence rate — or the rate of new cancer cases per 100,000 people — declined by 5.7%, while the annual mortality rate fell by 27.5%.
Cancer is a broad term encompassing many sorts of malfunction and nearly 40% of Americans will be diagnosed with it at some point because if you survive other hazards and maladies cancer is often what gets you.
If I pulled one person out of a burning building it would be newsworthy. Doctors are and have been pulling train loads every day.
I agree that 6 extra months (on average) means some patients get much more time than that. I agree that a statistically significant improvement on the survival rate for this terrible cancer is a very promising result longer term.
My disagreement was much narrower than that. I disagree that 6 extra months is equivalent to 5 extra years. I disagree that people living an extra 6 months on average is equivalent to one person living 3 extra years and one person living 3 extra days. I think 3 days and 3 years average out to about 1.5 years, not to 6 months.
Think of me as a living fossil who takes it for granted that everyone appreciates how much medicine improves our lives.
In theory once the child grows up and shocked that their credit score is ruined, they can file a police report to wipe the debt, but that also means their parents will go to jail, a large risk considering they're likely not in a good physical/mental health in the first place.
Other countries solved this by either having national ID or a working KYC system.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2026/mar/26/ai-got-the-blam...
