Many Python packages are packaged by apt to deal with this. Try apt search python3-.

Start by running vim and typing :vimtutor. You might have to install the vimtutor package. Its a good way to learn. Once you're through the vimtutor tutorial you should be good to go, you'll get better over time. I second recommending neovim over original vim. The command is nvim to start once installed.

Yes, cinnamon is its own DE. Its similar to KDE in layout, but iirc it's a fork of a very very old gnome version. I remember seeing a benchmark at some point that Cinnamon was less resource-intensive than GNOME or KDE

I'm still on an X11 session, so I used xinput --test-xi2 to look at it, and yeah. The thumb key doesn't register any type of event. Weird, right?

Ooooo thank you! A lifesaver.

I'll second the onboard storage, and add that any >3-button mouse should have buttons that map to actual key/character presses. I got a Razer Basilisk Pro on clearance, and it does have onboard storage, so once I turned off the RGB in the windows software on an old laptop, I could get rid of it. What I didn't realize til later is that the nice little thumb lever can't be remapped by anything but the Razer software (which has to be running all the time) because it doesnt register as any key combo, it had to be processed through their app to be used. Damn it.

Edit: Have you tried looking at what keycodes the side buttons on your current mouse are mapped to? Sometimes you can intercept that input and make it perform correctly. I haven't done it on linux yet, but I'm sure there's an equivalent to AutoHotkey for Linux.

Honestly I tried Silverblue, and had a much better time after I rebased to Bluefin. I would recommend going for Aurora over Kinoite. Of course, you can always rebase.

Ahhh gotcha. The websites don't give a good indication of that, unfortunately. Trying to find the differences between OpenSUSE flavors was surprisingly hard. Thanks for the info!

tl;dr: science is in the eye of the beholder, you can only know if it's science if the methods are transparent and you have access to data, as well as critiques from unbiased parties.

This thread seems to have formed two sides:

1. unless it's published, peer reviewed and replicated it's not science, and
2. LeCun is being elitist, science doesn't have to be published. This point of view often is accompanied by something about academic publishing being inaccessible or about corporate/private/closed science still being science.

I would say that "closed"/unpublished science may be science, but since peer review and replication of results are the only way we can tell if something is legitimate science, the problem is that we simply can't know until a third party (or preferably, many third parties) have reviewed it.

There are a lot of forms that review can take. The most thorough is to release it to the world and let anyone read and review it, and so it and the opinions of others with expertise in the subject are also public. Anyone can read both the publications and response, do their own criticism, and know whether it is science.

If "closed" science has been heavily reviewed and critiqued internally, by as unbiased a party as possible, then whoever has access to the work and critique can know it's science, but the scientific community and the general public will never be able to be sure.

The points folks have made about individuals working in secret making progress actually support this; I'll use Oppenheimer as an example.

In the 40s, no one outside the Manhattan project knew how nuclear bombs were made. Sure, they exploded, but no one outside that small group knew if the reasoning behind why they exploded was correct.

Now, through released records, we know what the supporting theory was, and how it was tested. We also know that subsequent work based on that theory (H-bomb development, etc.) and replication (countries other than the US figuring out how to make nukes, in some cases without access to US documents on how it was originally done) was successful and supported the original explanations of why it worked. So now we all know that it was science.

Photoshopped, unfortunately. They change, but not that much.

Pro tip: use zotero. Its an open-source bibliography program, you can export the entire bibliography at once in whatever format you want.