Orthokeratology lenses reshape your cornea overnight. Been using them for years, heartily recommend.

The comments from that article are some of the most vitriolic I’ve ever seen on a technical issue. Goes to prove the maintainer’s point though.

Some are good for a laugh though, like assertions that Rust in the kernel is a Microsoft sabotage op or LLVM is for grifters and thieves.

FOSS in general needs better means of financial support. While the software is free and libre, developer time is not, and ultimately they gotta eat and pay bills. I hope they get positive results and don’t catch much unnecessary flak.

Given the ease of implantation of end to end encryption now, it’s a reasonable assumption that anything not e2ee is being data mined. E2ee has extensive security benefits, for example even if your data is dumped the info is still useless. So, there has to be a compelling reason to not use it.

My first programming experience, an online class, was in a Linux VM. Linux made programming easy and delightful, Windows always made it a huge pain. As time went on, more of what I did was easier on Linux, and now everything is.

Key detail in the actual memo is that they’re not using just an LLM. “Wallach anticipates proposals that include novel combinations of software analysis, such as static and dynamic analysis, and large language models.”

They also are clearly aware of scope limitations. They explicitly call out some software, like entire kernels or pointer arithmetic heavy code, as being out of scope. They also seem to not anticipate 100% automation.

So with context, they seem open to any solutions to “how can we convert legacy C to Rust.” Obviously LLMs and machine learning are attractive avenues of investigation, current models are demonstrably able to write some valid Rust and transliterate some code. I use them, they work more often than not for simpler tasks.

TL;DR: they want to accelerate converting C to Rust. LLMs and machine learning are some techniques they’re investigating as components.

Title worried me for a moment that they were dropping Steam Input; happy to see they seem intent on the opposite.

Well this is a tremendous step in the wrong direction. The economic problem is the ad supported model in the first place, no matter how it’s run. This is the same thing Google does, they keep user data to themselves and sell the ad placement. So now Mozilla has the same economic incentives as Google. Unfathomably bad move.

The moment that shocked me was when printers, network cards, and even motherboard integrated Ethernet didn’t work on Windows without driver downloads but Linux was plug and play. Full reversal of the situation.

If you read carefully this is actually very similar to the Steam news. I doubt Valve or GOG care, but generally the games are “sold” by the publisher as non transferable licenses for you to play them. So the part that matters isn’t up to them.

After doing some Meta/Facebook VR development in my job the lack of popularity made increasingly more sense. In brief, they’re both incredibly incompetent and transparently greedy.

I’m honestly baffled how they could spend so many tens of billions of dollars and have such bad software, it is completely bug ridden. You’ll hit a bug, research it, and find out it’s a major know bug for literal years they haven’t fixed. They care so little that they couldn’t bother to update the Oculus branding to Meta for over 3 years in various software tools and libraries.

Their greed might be more salient aspect preventing adoption, though. They transparently wanted to be the gatekeepers to everything “metaverse” related, a business model that is now explicitly illegal in the EU after years of being merely very sketchy. They are straight up hostile to anyone else trying to implement enterprise or business features. Concrete example: fleet management software, aka MDM. There are third party tools that are cheaper and much more featured than Meta’s solution, but in the last year they’ve pushed hard to kick those third parties out of the ecosystem.

I could go on, but in short nobody in their right mind would build a major business on their ecosystem. They’d rather let Meta burn billions in R&D and come back later. Besides, not even Meta is able to make money in the area now.

Have you used it recently? Previous versions I would’ve agreed, but 5.0 was a huge improvement. If I didn’t know, I’d likely have assumed it to be a native feature.

I’ll take a look at Vivaldi’s approach though, I’ve heard good things about those features previously.

If you want vertical tabs with the ability to organize them in trees I suggest the Sideberry extension. It legitimately makes me nervous that the functionality would ever go away, it improves my productivity so much.

You can bookmark trees, collapse them, search them, load/unload them manually, I could go on. It makes it easy to organize dozens or hundreds of tabs. I have some trees for emails, news, forums, projects, etc. When I’m done just fold it up: the top tab bar can hide tabs that aren’t in the active tree you’re using, so you can still navigate the tabs normally.

GNOME always seemed like an odd choice considering how little customization is available. It feels like a prescriptive approach, you will use your computer the way GNOME feels is appropriate, whereas KDE tries to accommodate however you want to use your computer.

3 or 4 years, including on Nvidia machines. I’ll admit it took fiddling to get working awhile ago. Nowadays I use my desktops AMD iGPU as the main display driver and offload the rendering to the Nvidia card for intense programs or games, best of both worlds.

This is almost entirely misdirected. The success of Wikipedia is from its human structures, the technical structure is close to meaningless. To propose a serious alternative you’d have to approach it from a social direction, how are you going to build a moderation incentive structures that forces your ideal outcomes?

Federation isn’t a magic bullet for moderation, alone it creates fractal moderation problems.

The original UE5 seemed slightly premature, the 5.1 and 5.2 updates were significant and non trivial to update to. It also seems like a tool that gives you enough rope to hang yourself. Unlike Unity, everyone gets ready access to the full engine source code. Fortnite runs UE5, so the performance isn’t inherently bad.

The headline is pretty misleading. The full quote states this being the studios debut game made several factors major problems. UE5 as the engine, a highly competitive genre, and a new IP made nearly insurmountable obstacles. For comparison, Doom Eternal, their obvious AAA competitor, was from a veteran studio with a legendary IP built on literal decades of custom engine experience. On the other hand, a game like Ultrakill can compete by having an incredibly tight scope.

I think about it like a tree structure for both. With a gui you have to move your mouse around to various places, with a cli each character branches off into another tree. Mathematically you can handle more options faster with a CLI.

Curiosity, back around 2010 before I was a teenager. No clue how I heard about it, but the concept of replacing the entire operating system was fascinating. I figured it must be really good if it was such a well kept secret.

A few years later, when I started to learn programming, Linux was the obvious winner. The online course taught C in a Linux environment, and I was amazed that the default Ubuntu build at the time had everything built in, whereas a Windows equivalent required visual studio and licensing adventures.

It really stuck as a daily driver after Windows 7, where a clear trend emerged: Windows got in my way, Linux got out of my way. Simple as.