Sentau

Yeah I forgot about monitor support. Guess that's pretty important. But is pixel shifting gnome's responsibility or should that be done through monitor firmware so that it's OS agnostic¿?

How are gnome supposed to improve hardware support? Do gnome devs write drivers and such at the present time¿?

I am also sure that it will land as well. As a gnome user I hope it lands sooner than later. I am just frustrated because the pursuit of perfection is keeping us from having a better experience now. It's the calculator on iPad situation. Just because the perfect solution has not been found yet does not mean there should be no implemented solution at all.

These discussions took place several years ago if I remember correctly. The problem seems to be that cursor seems to want to refresh at a different rate than the content in screen and the people at gnome want the cursor to not feel choppy by being refreshed at the vrr determined refresh rate

VRR does have patches In progress.

This has been the case for years at this point

Wasn't fedora 38 already on linux 6.5. Why is that touted as feature of fedora 39¿?

Aston martin checked and submitted footage on track limits violations within hours of the Austrian GP. Not only did Haas have it, they had plently of time to review it as well. The problem here is that haas are none operationally speaking. Took them 2 weeks to find and highlight this

Weird I used to have this complain earlier but I don't now even though I have a low midrange/premium budget Android device way weaker than your iPhone(but it does have a 120Hz screen). Some actions like opening up the reply test box still feel stuttery but it is leagues better than it was before. I suggest you file a bug report on the GitHub page(link will be there in the sidebar). Also attach the video there so the dev can see your issues

Could you attach a screen recording. Do you mean lower fps as in stutters or that the animation is rendering at 60fps¿?

See I could be wrong. I am just expressing my opinions as a casual player and football enjoyer. I still think that rashford should have assessed that the player lunging will reach space before him. Just because it is an accident, does not mean there are no consequence.

It is fun chatting with you though. Was missing chains like these since leaving reddit.

this just points out how bad your analogy is, shielding he ball is always close to another player...

Yeah my analogy ain't perfect but there are 2 points. One is that shielding inherently safer than high foot so the fact it is done with people around doesn't seem very critical to me. Second and more important is that in both cases, the fouls were not intentional but ended being a pretty serious fouls which in vacuum would both be given as a red card. Why should rashford escape a red card when majorly messed up with his timing and player positional knowledge and ended up committing a pretty serious foul.

Last season Garnacho is tackled in the box against Southampton, is injured, not only is it not a red card, it's not even called as a foul/penalty.

This is just incompetent refreeing which the PL is unfortunately completely full of

now all you need to do is time your tackle well enough so that your foot ends up under their leg and it will be a red card always?

The copenhagen player did not intentionally put his foot under rashford though. He was going for the ball and beat rashford to punch. It is no different than when fouls are given when a defender puts his foot between the ball and a player who trying to shoot at goal with the result of the player kicking the defender's foot instead of the ball. In that situation it is a clear foul so why not here. Also please stop giving malicious intentional plays as examples

the defender tries to go through him and in doing so his foot is slid under rashford's foot, this should never be a red.

The defender does not go through rashford, rather he tries to go to the ball before rashford and rashford is late to shield the ball. Rashford at no point was between the ball and his man from whom he was trying to shield and by the time he was, he had already stomped on him. You are given a yellow if you make a late challenge and red if the late tackle you make is dangerous. On the other hand if you time the tackle well, no matter how dangerous it would have been if the ball was not there, it is not a foul(unless you catch the player on the follow though studs up). Why is it that dangerous late tackles can be punished with red cards but a guy being late to plant his foot while shielding the ball and hence planting his foot on the guys ankle (pretty dangerous) cannot be punished similarly with a red¿?

ball shielding happens all the time

So does people lifting your feet high up to control high long balls. Many wingers and full backs do it. It is only a foul when you do it close to another player and only worthy of a red if you catch a player with your high foot. I expect the case here to be similar. Executed correctly, there is no problem with shielding the ball but you have to ensure that you reach the position from where you have to shield before your opponent.

this is nothing like that though

In both cases players took action which in a vacuum would be legal but because they did not account for the presence/positioning of their opponents, both of them are fouls. And because in both cases their foul ended up being something which can cause major damage to the opposition player, it ended up being red card worthy.