Luccus

@Luccus@feddit.de

Ask me about kumquats.

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

Luccus, (edited )

I’ve been using Linux for more than a decade now as my daily driver.

Count me as ‘basic’ and ‘just starting’, because I quite like the colorful, clicky and nicely animated version, where I don’t have to remember anything and that works just as well.

And now out of my way, while I happily point, click and scroll to adjust my displays brightness, which is entirely possible through the terminal, but I’m not ridiculous or insecure enough for that.

Luccus, (edited )

Linux users (sometimes):

sees an extremely user-friendly interface - so good that everyone and their grandma can use it perfectly right away without any explanation

“Ugh, why doesn’t this look more complicated?”

Edit: This was in response to someone commenting “Why does it look like toddler UI?”. The comment seems to be deleted now.

Luccus,

Edit #2: ICE is a type of train in germany. I mistook “ICE cars” as meaning trains and was wondering how flying is supposed to be more efficient than trains. Hence my confusion.

**OG comment (invalid, see Edit #2):**Where are these numbers coming from?

I cannot find any source for the 3-4l/passenger/km claim. I cannot find any source for the claim that planes are more efficient. Nothing comes even near this claim.

ourworldindata.org/travel-carbon-footprint

eea.europa.eu/…/rail-and-waterborne-transport

www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566

Can you please provide a source?

Edit #1: I just want to add that my old combustion car (VW Up! / Seat Mii / Skoda Citigo) burned around 4.2l/100km. So I according to you, if I had another person with me, I’d beat both planes and trains with what stands uncontested as the most inefficient form of transport?

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • localhost
  • All magazines
    •
    Loading…
    Loading the web debug toolbar…
    Attempt #