Debian is a soft no, because despite being an excellent distro, it defaults to GNOME or the user has to deliberately choose something else, which is a problem for giving distro recommendations to noobs because whe you start tacking on stuff like "and make sure you enable the..." their eyes start to glaze over and you risk them thinking the whole affair sounds more complicated than it really is.
I mean I really do love Debian, if not OpenSUSE I would be using Debian now, but it's not a great distro to suggest for absolute novices.
To be honest I haven't owned a dGPU in almost 20 years, but I've been lead to understand that most users with them use them all the time and ignore their iGPU, unless they're laptop users, in which case they might have to use Nvidia's proprietary drivers from what I understand; the installation of which is something Mint makes straight forward for novices, or so I've been lead to understand. Maybe I'm wrong about some of that.
I definitely agree that KDE vs Cinnamon probably doesn't matter. But I'm afraid I don't think particularly highly of any KDE-first distro; it's great from, for example, OpenSUSE, but that's not a distro I'd recommend to new users for other reasons.
The problem I've got with Ubuntu is they keep doing weird shit like submitting desktop searches to Amazon or putting ads in the motd. They're an erratic organization and I think it's a mistake to send new users in their direction. Mint may not be perfect, but I think it's broadly inoffensive and mild, a good distro to leave a good first impression on a new user fumbling through the process themself.
I genuinely don't think Xorg is a deal breaker for newbs and I would characterize dual-GPU as at least slightly exotic, maybe because I've never owned such a computer, but that's a fair enough point. Personally I think the polish of Cinnamon makes it the best recommendation for somebody new, and I know a whole lot of people start with that and have a sufficiently good experience that they stick with linux (while maybe moving on to other distros.)
The benchmark game is wholly gamed, but the proof is in the pudding. I know people using Anthropic, OpenAI, and Gemini. Chinese models locally. But who uses Grok for anything but porn? Whatever the benchmarks might say, Grok is just trash in practice. They spent too much time teaching it to be edgy and not enough time teaching it to code.
Weapons in space, yes. Government constellations are SpaceX's best opportunity. As for anything else, the market for anything bigger than Falcon 9 is very small. Elon Musk didn't even want to proceed with Falcon Heavy because there isn't much market for even that, but Shotwell managed to convince him that having Falcon Heavy would actually help sales of Falcon 9, by inducing the government to take SpaceX more seriously.
I assume "extremely skeptical" is you being generous, is there anybody other than Elon who says xAI/Grok are SOTA? The only thing anybody says about it is that it's only good for porn, but local models do porn too so xAI has no moat or edge at all as far as I can see.
Why don't they just charge [more] for a mountain license? A few thousand per hiker would probably be tolerated by people who view the hike as a lifetime achievement kind of thing.
Are you kidding? They've probably been selling a datastream of who in the company has been job searching to company HR departments the whole time. Search for a job on LinkedIn and I bet anybody with a paid corporate account can find that out if they care to.
LinkedIn has been overtly evil for decades, and their power users are the most insufferable sort of middle management yuppy scum. I know job searching can be hard, but I don't go near LinkedIn with a ten foot pole.
Yes, Krita is definitely my preference, and aseprite for pixel art work (not open source, but source available and free of cost if you choose to build it yourself.)
Certainly Microsoft is responsible for most of it. I'm just saying Felix still has a lot of influence and has been pulling in the same direction to his millions of fans.
How do they hope to make prop transfer work without a working heat shield to enable reuse of the tankers? Unless SpaceX pulls a hat trick, Starship is borderline useless.
Ubuntu on servers has always been "a choice", Debian is definitely the preferable of the two. Even on desktops, I'd sooner suggest Debian or Mint than Ubuntu. Ubuntu is a dead distro coasting on a reputation 15(+) years out of date.
(And it used to be that Ubuntu was still a defensible choice for maximizing the chance of getting help online, but LLMs have effectively neutralized this advantage.)
M$ shareholders ITT are sweating bullets! Gaming has always been Microsoft's redoubt; without it they will lose the retail market entirely and be left with only the B2B market coasting on the soon forgotten legacy of what Windows once was, and eventually that will dry up too as Windows fails to capture the attention of a new generation of engineers and administrators.
Pewdiepie becoming an arch-pilled rice-maxxer who advocates Linux for freedom and gaming has surely had some effect. He's such a good sport he even swore off Photoshop and tries to learn to like Gimp.
I didn't think of the gun getting passed around. To me, "one round" is pulling the trigger once after spinning the cylinder with one bullet. 1-in-6 chance of dying, you'll probably live. That's how I feel about this mission, I think they'll probably live, but man I'm nervous.
If you're not getting downvoted at least some of the time on HN you're doing something wrong. I've caught plenty of downvotes myself for arguing that Mars was never going to happen and is just a recruiting tactic for SpaceX to hire idealistic young engineers and pay them sub-market wages because the dream of Mars is part of their compensation.
All the hardware they've actually invested in, including Starship, is in fact foremost for launching satellites into Earth orbit. Starship in particular is optimized for this.
Extremely doubtful that the stimmy was enough to meaningfully reduce the real poverty level. The people who already live paycheck to paycheck spent that almost as soon as they got it (hopefully on something that meaningfully improved their lives, like deferred car or home repairs, but if we're being real a lot of people blew it on gambling apps.)
Yes I agree. All the moreso because the word fish is very ancient and was used to mean any aquatic animal long before Linnaeus came along and decided to "well ackshully" the word.
Note that Melville was well aware of the reasons that "whales aren't fish", and went over those in detail, then said he was going to call them fish anyway.
> That's not how you prove that code works properly
Yes it is. What do you expect, formal verification of a toy GUI library? Get real.
> and isn't going to fail due to some obscure or unforessen corner case.
That's called "a bug", they get fixed when they're found. This isn't aerospace software, failure is not only an option, it's an expected part of the process.
> You need actual proof that's driven by the code's overall structure.
I literally don't.
> Humans do this at least informally when they code, AI's can't do that with any reliability
Sounds like a borderline theological argument. Coding agents one-shot problems a lot more often than I ever did. Results are what matters, demonstrable results.
You're fooling yourself. It's very easy to get demonstrably working results in an afternoon that would take weeks at least without coding agents. Demonstrably working, as in you can prove the code actually works by then putting it to use. I had a coding agent write an entire declarative GUI library for mpv userscripts, rendering all widgets with ASS subtitles, then proceeded to prove to my satisfaction that it does in fact work by using it to make a node editor for constructing ffmpeg filter graphs and an in-mpv nonlinear video editor. All of this is stuff I already knew how to do in practice, had intended to do one day for years now, but never bit the bullet because I knew it would turn into weeks of me pouring over auto-generated ASS doing things it was never intended to do to figure out why something is rendering subtly wrong. Fairly straightforward but a ton of bitch work. The LLM blasted through it like it was nothing. Fooling myself? The code works, I'm using it, you're fooling yourself.
Maybe a little. I don't hold fast to that popular wisdom, e.g. I think comments are not always a net positive for LLMs. With respect to technical debt, how much debt is too much debt before it gums up the works and arrests forward progress on the software? It probably depends on the individual programmer. LLMs do seem to have a higher tolerance for technical debt than myself personally at least.
In my view, vegans are dumb but it's still unethical to trick them into eating something they ordinarily wouldn't. Does that make sense to you? I am not asking you to agree with me on the merits of veganism, I am explaining why the merits of veganism shouldn't even matter when it comes to the question of deliberately trying to trick them.
Put yourself in their shoes; either the quality of Claude's coding continues to improve or else their business is probably doomed if it stagnates, so for them it makes sense to punt technical debt to the future when more capable versions of their models will be able to better fix it.
This is why I personally don't take technical debt arguments about how LLM maintained code bases deteriorate with size/age seriously; it presumes that at some point I'll give up with the LLM and be left with a mess to clean up by hand, but that's not going to happen, future maintenance is to be left to LLMs and if that isn't possible for some reason then the project is as good as dead anyway. When you start a project with a LLM the plan should be to see it through with LLMs, planning to have unaided humans take over maintenance at some point is a mistake.
Like frying a veggie burger in bacon grease. Just because somebody's beliefs are dumb doesn't mean we should be deliberately tricking them. If they want to opt out of your code, let them.