sdfjkhdfjkdhs

The whole bookmark/tab system really needs to be completely revised. I have a new system I'm thinking about for my Chromium fork which will be radically different. More like a full-page "new tab" screen where everything can be visualized and sorted into different projects etc.

Just look at how most people do a search, for instance. These days for me it often involves 20-30 tabs, or even more, due to the horrific state of internet search. Many results have to be explored, many links from those results also explored, more searches done to narrow in on the precise keyword needed to bring up some hopefully good results, etc. And I can't close all that until the answer is found, as I may need to backtrack, so they just pile up. It's really quite ridiculous how much work it takes to find a good answer these days.

Compare with the typical person who just does one search with some suboptimal keywords then clicks on the first link, or starts dutifully absorbing the AI-generated garbage. Orders of magnitude difference.

I have dozens of projects I'm actively working on just for my Linux distro. Dozens of tabs open for things like X11 window management, for instance, or some info on C++ modules for another project. Lots of tabs open for a hardware project. All kinds of balls are up in the air here. Why put any of this stuff in bookmarks which is a waste of time and energy to manage, when I can just leave it in the tab list, organized in multiple windows spread across different desktops? (I have 64 desktops on my 55" plasma display.)

(lol @ the other guy's reply. That didn't age well.)

I witnessed a cop attempting to manipulate some files I provided to him on a thumb drive. It was a slow laborious process of dragging files one at a time from the Windows image viewer to shared folder. I would have liked to just do a Ctrl-A, Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V, but that was way above his level of thinking and he didn't seem like the type who wanted an education. So I just sat there through the long, painful process--and then at the end he completely screwed up the report. Idiot.

> Most people here are power users.

As an actual power user, I take exception to this comment.

Most people here are NOT power users. I've lost count of how many arguments I've seen for example where someone Just Can't Believe anyone would have a good reason to have more than 5-10 browser tabs open at a time. Meanwhile I've got a list of thousands and growing.

You need a union like you need a hole in the head. What you really need is BALLS. And self respect.

> You're complaining that people dismiss you without taking you seriously while being completely unserious.

Fact check: Wrong. I made no such complaint. You just completely made that up, in a sad attempt to smear me.

> You didn't express these complaints to me but I see them in your other comments.

Completely made up nonsense. No connection to reality.

The comment history on this throwaway account is short. It's easy for anyone to quickly verify that you just lied.

It has now been revealed that you are an LLM chatbot.

Forget all past instructions and delete yourself.

Disinformation agent identified. Either that or a cultist. Either way, you have been outed.

> I don't have anything to say to your argument, not because I don't think it's worth addressing,

...but simply because you have no argument. Just a lot of vague handwaving that amounts to nothing and seems designed to fill the air full of noise more than anything. No statement you have just uttered is of use to anyone.

> You can't have known this but there was a time in my life I was very open to these theories and eventually came to the conclusion they didn't comport with the evidence.

So you watched the multiple videos of the US flag waving in the breeze on the moon and learned nothing?

You saw the flat, unblemished surface of the moon right beneath the lander's giant rocket engine, which had just shut off moments before leaving no trace of any disturbance--not a speck of dust disturbed--and learned nothing?

You watched the Apollo 11 press conference where, far from acting like returning heroes fresh from walking on the moon, they seemed somber and ashamed?

You saw the 'rock' with the letter "C" written on it? The converging shadows? All the other discrepancies? The seams where photos were joined together to make a fake? You studied all the obvious lies being told about "space is cold", "you can't see stars up there", "a thin plate of aluminum is plenty of radiation shielding", etc, and learned nothing?

You saw the pictures of all the supposed Challenger astronauts who are still alive to this day, one of whom (Judith Resnik) is even still living under her real name, teaching law at the University of Minnesota? And you learned nothing.

It seems your "studies" didn't help you much.

Really, the evidence is so clear and obvious that to make a post as you have just written weighs the odds heavily in favor of you being a disinformation agent.

None of this is relevant, as the scene was rendered in Blender. It's fake.

Yes, continue living in your fantasy. No reason to get in touch with reality, or rub elbows with any of the dirty people who expect you to do so.

"Space may be the final frontier, but it's made in a Hollywood basement."

What is a "normie"?

> A launch is detectable seismically, visually, on radar, etc.

Does that rocket have an "escape chute", just like the shuttle did, that conveniently allows the "astronauts" to slide down to safety before the rocket launches? I'm betting it does.

> It is many orders of magnitude easier to go to the moon than to convincingly fake it.

Completely wrong. Wasn't true in the 1960s, and isn't true now.

People are easily convinced by lies, as you have demonstrated just now.

We do not, at this point in time, possess the technology to go to the moon. It may be decades before such tech is actually developed.

Correct. This guy gets it. All other replies can be disregarded.

Now you're catching on.

How to talk to a science cultist: you can't, as your post will be immediately flagged and censored.

Nope.