UnbornTao

@RisingLane What even is that game about? The duo reminds me of Jak & Daxter.

KDE Plasma Powertoys (if you use Windows) Bitwarden Heroic and Lutris Tor Browser Proton VPN Local Send Ollama I'm looking into KeePassXC and Syncthing. People like Nextcloud.

Oh, right. I thought it was some sort of riddle or something. "Everything is free, comrade."

Everything? Thunderbird is a good email client, too. Da Vinci Resolve has a free version. On Linux you have to remove some libraries from its directory if it won't open. It's likely better than Kdenlive.

Switched to Zed. Rust-based. WinRar (though I prefer and use 7zip).

Reread what I said. To me, what you're talking about has very little use if it can't be actualized. It's just having concepts about some subject - which go mostly unchallenged, by the way. It's easy for one to think a subject is understood when it really isn't. You just have to believe that you do. If that something is an ability you can't carry out reasonably well, then there's very little value in what you think you understand about it. "Oh, I understand bike riding. But I can't even get on one without falling." Whoop-de-doo.

Not really. Doing it reasonably well isn't the same as mastering it. It just means being able to make it real - whether that is done excellently or not is a different matter.

Audacity's getting an overhaul that seems promising. I'd add GIMP and LibreOffice but I don't think they're that pretty or mature functionality-wise - compared to the equivalent proprietary, paid alternatives.

Not at all. We're using 'understanding' differently. I'm talking about experiential understanding. If you can't "do" it (experience it, actualize it, make it real and not merely conceptual), you don't really 'understand' it. Your inability to actualize it is proof of this disparity, and this feedback points to the existence of this domain of "knowledge" that isn't just "thinking" that you understand something. The latter requires proving it, in a sense, and not just spinning your mental wheels.

It's a pretty grounded story. I think this down-to-earth quality is an important element of why the show resonates with people. Who hasn't had a drug-kingpin chemist teacher at some point? Not me!

This seems to be the case. You have an extra "is" in your signature, by the way.

Actually, in many contexts, if you can't 'do' it, you don't really understand it. This applies to countless abilities and domains of knowledge. Driving is another example. We're making a distinction between two domains of understanding, if you will.

The quote from Psychology Today is quite interesting. I'm too lazy to fact-check it now but I'll take Leo's word for it.

In many ways this is true. To use an example liberally, we may think we know what an emotion is, but in our experience, do we really? How far does our understanding of it go? By 'doing,' in this context, I mean to actually see or understand it. Another example would be cooking: you may 'know' a lot, but actual understanding implies or demands being able to 'do' it - to apply the knowledge effectively so that you cook a high-quality dish. Something like that.

Calibre comes to mind. Inkscape, Krita. Obsidian is free and closed-source (as a sidenote). OpenMW. The Affinity suite is free now, I reckon. Not sure how long that's going to last. They might release a Linux version at some point but there's no word on that yet. The biggest one in this sense is probably Wine.