UnbornTao

Got it, thanks.

Maybe. But set that aside. I wasn't asking for a plausible, rational explanation or answer. Look into the existence of the depression. It's also possible that you're talking about more than one thing. I'd suggest you get even clearer on what things you're actually referring to. It sounds like you're using depression as a very broad category encompassing other feeling-states. Regarding depression, for example, how does it relate to time? In relation to what time period does it exist? Now, past, future? What are its components? Again, something to explore experientially. And by the way, it seems to me that we tend to conflate identifying something in our experience - labeling it, giving it a name, having a fixed conception around that experience - with being aware of what it is, its nature. I'd be wary of this confusion we often fall into.

I wouldn't say that. I think I know where this stance comes from - it is a common trope in pop-culture, and a tempting one to engage in. But look at the source of depression, beyond your intellect. It might be that we are ignorant of the fact that we generate it, and how we're doing that. We might simply use external circumstances as a pretext to abdicate our responsibility. Why does one get depressed from time to time (excluding some serious physiological imbalance)? What's going on in what you call the state of being depressed?

You might want to try QEMU + Virt-manager. Much more performant. Linux Mint is always a solid option. Stable and reliable. I'm rocking CachyOS now and loving it. Maybe not ideal as a first distro, though.

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

KDE Plasma Powertoys (if you use Windows) Bitwarden Heroic, Lutris Tor Browser Proton VPN LocalSend Ollama I'm looking into KeePassXC and Syncthing.

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, although they are not particularly pretty.

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 chemistry 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.

This is the kind of poetry I signed up for!

Amen!

Yep. And Microsoft is supposedly "removing" some of its AI from Windows.

Not shit - invented, complementary, ultimately disconnected from the actuality of things. Extraneous. Like eating a picture of food when hungry. You can of course get angry at that. The main point is that the circumstances are not the deciding factor. The mere objective obstruction does nothing more than physically prevent you from moving forward. Why would this event by itself have to generate anger - or any other reaction, for that matter? What else occurs *within you* such that this reactivity can show up in the first place? You do see and interpret the situation a certain way relative to your concerns and wants. You likely had a desire or expectation that was thwarted - to which your response is reacting in an angry way. Yeah, I mostly agree. We ourselves are the main anger-inducing factor, though. If we see it as an obstruction, it may well be relative to some concern, expectation, or goal of ours that we're failing (being unable to) to fulfill. This is related to our agenda and desires. A circumstance or an object themselves don't care, warrant, or demand a fixed reaction from us. Let's propose that we don't authentically know or realize what either anger or pain are, intrinsically (or anything else, for that matter). We may well think (believe) we do understand them due to their familiarity, and our natural arrogance. This kind of mental "knowing" can actually take the form of ignorance, preventing us from observing what's taking place as the emotion. Explaining it is one thing; being aware of its nature is another. What would it take for us to apprehend their nature? Consider that to the degree we realize its nature is the degree of freedom we're allowed to generate it or not. (Not as a pretension but as a real ability to willfully experience it or not.) Not saying this is necessarily easy or commonplace, but it's possible. We could see the emotion as having certain components that occur regardless of the possible causes ascribed to it. For example, anger is always related to a past event. It's about something that's already passed, even if just a millisecond ago. The first paragraph sounds reasonable. What underlies the emotion, though? Obstruction of movement is again a simple physical act that by itself doesn't have to induce anger. Something additional has to occur. What do we do when we get angry? Regarding your second paragraph, the difference is that anger is based on a past imagination, while anxiety is a form of fear - both of these are based on a future. A bit all over the place.

Let me shoehorn this now:

Goone, but not forgotten.