They get less hot (especially the network adapters on the ends of them), can go a lot further, can be a lot denser (including being able to carry things other than Ethernet in the same bundle), and are a lot more future-proof (unless the cable jacket literally crumbles at the slightest movement in a few years).

Given that there isn't any objective basis for the default scaling factor of a monitor being what we call 1x, I would argue that 2x scaling isn't any less native than 1x

The 2x scaling refers to the OS UI being set to 200%. That means each UI pixel is rendered by 2x2 physical pixels of the monitor. It has a very clear and objective definition. Did you mean something else?

I think it's definitely a clear definition of what you're doing, but I still take some issue with the framing of "UI pixels". I would argue that it's more like abstract "UI distance units."

Most UI's are designed to be "right-sized" for humans with a "distance unit" being about 1/96th of an inch (when the display is the designer-expected distance from the user). If you deviate too far from this, things end up being really big or really small and the display is harder to use. What you're effectively doing when you enable "2x scaling" is setting the "abstract distance unit" that gets applied to UIs to be the size of two display pixels, rather than one display pixel. Whether this is a good thing to do and is more or less "native", IMO, depends on the DPI of the display.

I don't think that's allowed under the terms of the x86/x86_64 cross-license deal with AMD.

That's why, for example, any meaningful collaboration between Intel and Nvidia under this partnership has to be released in the form of an Intel product using Nvidia tech, rather than an Nvidia product using Intel tech.

I think that statement needs the word "again" to be inserted due to the bizarre choices of AMD Vega

Don't forget fury x!

It's true, but aren't most hacks like this? If you understand the system flaw, the hack is obvious.

That's a thing on ARM. See: ARM SystemReady.

Unfortunately, the adoption has been very slow going because ARM SOC vendors are set in their ways.

They also do a really sloppy job of marking why packages were installed in the initial installation media... A bunch of packages that are not critical get marked as manually installed (so they don't go away if you remove the things that depend on them). At the same time, a bunch of packages that are actually critical don't get marked as manually installed. This means that you can remove a package you don't want and then autoremove will start wanting to uninstall critical parts of your system.

Agree to disagree, I guess.

I've found three "hotspots" that break Ubuntu at a pretty high rate of incidence: 1) Upgrading to the next distro release 2) Installing or updating Nvidia drivers using the built-in management tool 3) Changing to a different kernel "series" (such as switching to a hardware enablement kernel)

In all these cases, I've found that the process stands a solid (hand-waving: 20%) chance of stopping in the middle, requiring manual resolution of broken packages.

Package errors aren't that bad, but NixOS config errors are a nightmare because they are often a value that was computed from a value that was computed from what you wrote triggering a missing field, class mismatch, or infinite recursion in very generic framework code.

I would agree if they would sell them over 55 inches with the latest panel technology in a similar pricing ballpark.

I really like that thin one featured on LTT a long time ago, it's like just a sheet of glass you attach to a wall, it's crazy.

Extra-thin LCD panels are typically edge-lit, and edge-lit panels are not faring well at all in RTINGS' longevity test.

And audio. I don't want a separate audio setup.

A separate audio setup could have much better sound than built-in TV speakers.

Certainly, but I am not interested in dealing with that.