nullifidian

There are some positive movements though. For example the addition of explicit synchronization that the nvidia driver needs to function properly into DRI3 / Xwayland https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/xorg/xserver/-/merge_requests... is active as of right now, and it seems that it will succeed. The corresponding mutter issue https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/mutter/-/merge_requests/3300

AMD's drivers weren't open in 2007 either and for a number of years after that.

The situation has been changing rapidly since summer. According to my research, if you combine their desktop and cuda bugginess (for 7900 XTX) they are approaching the nvidia level of bugginess on linux, which is surprisingly quite high (much much higher than what it was say 5 years ago when nvidia just worked). One just needs a glimpse at their forum https://forums.developer.nvidia.com/c/gpu-graphics/145 to gauge the situation.

I just bought a 4090 and the desktop experience I get is much worse than what I had with the gpu embeded in the Ryzen 7950x: Wayland doesn't work, in Xorg there is tearing in mpv, alt-tab sometimes breaks in gnome. When I launch memory intensive cuda kernels the whole desktop becomes unresponsive. The drivers spews Xid errors in dmesg and breaks for certain applications, such as embergen.

That's UK/Australian legal/cultural norms for you.

According to the following article the south also indirectly a supplier in this war.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/14/world/asia/north-south-ko...

>The market judges everyone’s skills, and barring nepotism, the market will pay everyone what they are worth

That's when the the miseducated majority will find that the market is unjust. All goes according to plan.

Comcert is verified functional code in coq that is translated to ocaml for execution, the compiler for which isn't verified. It doesn't solve the problem of verification of imperative code. The state of the art approaches to imperative code verification using coq ( such as https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/refinedc ) struggle to verify the basic college textbook algorithms and are extremely clunky in practice.

The experience will probably be hellish anyway because of the Web integrity API. Javascript compiled to asm.js could produce painted-to-canvas websites too, and it won't be any less viable especially considering the growth of the CPU scores. Webassembly is prevalent in the canvas use cases because DOM manipulation with it is slower, clunky(due to the poor browser integration) and because people want to reuse native-language codebases.

If the canvas website really was a threat we would have seen much more of it by now already, but it hasn't happened for a number of reasons -- we only see them in the dedicated desktop-app-like use cases like this one. Anything scrollable won't be viable because it would be inherently less responsive than the real deal. Fonts look different, most designers actually prefer for people to be able to select text, and be able to use browser functionality that looks native for the different OSs. Canvas websites are also more expensive in terms of blob loading and ability to cache pages. So it's not really a threat.

Most adblocking happens by the means of network/URL blocking and I don't see any potential difference between WASM and JS in this regard(unless the APIs are enshittified, but JS isn't impervious to this too). If ads can't be blocked by network, and the website proxies ad contents through its own domain(as far as I know that's not prevalent, maybe I'm ignorant -- they need to track users and clicks themselves anyway), than you could get hard to block websites with JS+DOM too -- it's possible disrupt DOM based blocking by frequent randomization/obfuscation to the degree that one would need some kind of advanced AI to even hope to find the ad DOM elements. Between WEI, web bundles, Topics API push, webassembly's supposed higher indecipherability (which isn't true, chrome "disassembles" WASM into the WAT form and it's pretty readable. More readable than wasm.js) doesn't even register.

>And for what?

To not deal with JavaScript? To be able to develop for the web in the language you want, without floats being the fundamental numeric type and other BS? Is that too fantastical of a desire?

that ship has sailed. Minified and optionally obfuscated js is already highly annoying to decipher. The wasm spec is surprisingly high level for what should be a low level VM, and is planned to get much more high level approaching near jvm levels, and isn't any less readable than C++ compiled to asm.js.

>you don't really need any (almost any?) intermediate JS anymore

I don't think that's true. You still need JS glue code that would return these externrefs. A WebAssembly module loaded through ESM integration can't as far as the current proposals access Web-APIs on its own. As far as I understand there is also a number performance issues related to the wasm spec itself that limit possible optimizations, making wasm second class to JS in terms of performance of WebAPI access.

Do you know anything about any WASM developments that will enable pure WASM interaction with the browser's Web-APIs at no or at a low cost without the JS layer? Sometimes I look at https://github.com/WebAssembly/proposals and it's very confusing. There are the type imports proposal(years away), the almost complete GC proposal(which is apparently only for GCd languages, but not for anything browser<->wasm), the component model(which looks and sounds as something not for the browser use case), JS String Builtins (which will provide faster JS strings, but not DOM) and ECMAScript module integration (which will turn WASM modules into ES modules, but Web-APIs aren't ES modules so no luck). Sometimes I read contributor interactions and it looks as if providing such functionality isn't their priority or even in their plans, and for the majority the WASI + component model for the cloud, crypto and similar use cases are more important.

Personally I want a pure rust (minimal unsafes) PDF rendering/parsing library and viewer, same for EPUB (basically minimal browser engine), a video player (with ffmpeg equivalent), an image viewer with the accompanying image format libraries. Also preferably that it wouldn't be too integrated into the "ecosystem" which usually results in something hellish(JSish) like 300 microdependnecies authored by 200 people for something basic, and would be more self-contained.

"Sorry, you can't view or download this file at this time. Too many users have viewed or downloaded this file recently. ..."

Would be funny to discover that libgen was the key provider of knowledge for the AI revolution. Unsung heroes so to speak.

No, it should have to do with the British Culture, the lack of anti-authoritarian implants in it, or something like that. The fact that there is no broad political opposition to the laws like this one (There are many others enacted in the last 30 years) is just a symptom.

There is even bigger financial incentive in general to shut up / deplatform an outspoken, high-profile leftist (as in a person who threatens profits), or a politician in general. So such accusations should be considered with caution.

Maybe a bit too conspiratorial but I can easily imagine some Google exec asking advertisers: "Give as a casus belli for a crack down on free speech".

https://youtu.be/hDek2cp0dmI?t=499 the presentation with narration of the author.

Why not segment user interfaces for different demographics by creating several apps (or switchable app modes) -- one for the "marginal" users, another for the less "marginal" "normal" users, and another for "sophisticated" ones who want more options and control and are prepared to pay for it by tolerating increased complexity?

>My app is totally free, done as a charity/side project for disadvantaged kids.

I assume you haven't made "$200,000 USD or more in the last 12 months" from it, so you can relax.

Yup, it makes free-to-play games with high installation numbers and less exploitative mechanics that result in $200k (or over $1mil with the pro subscription iiuc) yearly income either non-viable, or much less viable using this engine.

They are also seemingly making Unity games online-only for the DRM/accounting purposes.

>Upgrading your CPU

On the recent Intel platforms upgrading your CPU required upgrading your mobo too, and there are many people who upgrade almost every generation, i.e. 1-2 years. Burdening game developers with this is unjust. The engine fee should be tied to the game's purchase, or game related purchases(DLC, other paid content).

AMD also promised (iirc) that the AM5 will only be good for 2 generations.

>if you install it on a different one it will.

Making the developer pay for user's hardware upgrades is still insane.

"We are introducing a Unity Runtime Fee that is based upon each time a qualifying game is downloaded by an end user. We chose this because each time a game is downloaded, the Unity Runtime is also installed."

This reads as something insane. If a player replays a game on steam, redownloads it, the developer still pays for the installation? I know people who redownload games all the time, like tens of times over the span of several years. I hope it's imprecise language and only the initial install/download is counted.

I hope these changes (whatever they actually are) won't push game developers towards developing games that milk users more, with loot boxes, in-game currency, cosmetics etc, and away from stand alone you-pay-once games, single player or multiplayer, only to be able to pay for the ongoing engine fees.

Considering there are only few actors (the social media, search, internet infrastructure companies) the coercion is unlikely to stop due to a court decision. The government and the legislature have a lot of leverage, up to an anti-trust action, and instead of threatening emails or public statements they could do it with off the record conversations, which are much harder to sue against -- the public wouldn't even know. The more questionable is the position of a company regarding anti-trust, title VII, {something else I can't think of}, the more leverage the government has.

There is also https://github.com/kjliew/qemu-3dfx pass-through 3D acceleration for qemu https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e34mSBxDm7s

I checked the form, and you in fact have to add plenty of personal information to submit a takedown request. So in this case the submitter obviously didn't supply their real name. A youtuber on the other hand can't submit a false name on their counter filing (for the obvious reasons) and their personal information is sent to the takedown submitter automatically if I understood it correctly.

I posted this video because it's a telling illustration of the interaction between the DMCA, the Youtube's particular implementation of compliance with it, and the resulting ability of third parties to inflict significant harm to the content creators.

Knowing EU it could be altered to "Google removes the ability to install non-sanctioned alternative stores which don't have strict content filtering and anti-piracy policies, as per the EU directive" while preserving the (high) level of plausibility.

>when Vision Pro becomes trendy

Vision Pro or its copies are unlikely to be unlocked enough to run user supplied linux.