suby

Yeah, this is why I said it devalued the usefulness of the stat.

It goes both ways though. There are people who checked that they use Ubuntu when they're on Mac or Windows the majority of the time, but there are also people that checked they're on Debian which isn't feeding into the Ubuntu top line number. I'm not sure which way this is going to bias it -- I could see the number being much higher or much lower. Debian was at 9.8% (iirc) for instance, and I don't imagine there are many people using both Ubuntu/Debian for desktop usage.

Linux Desktop isn't perfect, but it's in no way a dumpster fire. I'm much happier using Linux than any other viable alternative. Your experience clearly differs, but I personally have very few complaints at this point. Calling it a dumpster fire is extreme hyperbole.

I'm hoping they're incentivized to support Linux just based on the developer market share of Linux. The StackOverflow developer survey looks like it unfortunately allows people to choose multiple options which devalues the results and obscures the actual numbers, but at the top level 27% of developers are using Ubuntu desktop.

RustRover is already free for non-commercial use.

This will probably sound ridiculous, but I can't get over the fact that he was playing Dota 2 for years, thousands of games played and was still in bronze league. I consider RTS games like this a proxy for intelligence, and while it isn't a perfect proxy due to it also requiring hand dexterity / mechanical skill / some arbitrary memorization, I do still think it's a good indicator that there was something off with him mentally.

You should passively improve with the amount of games he had under his belt, even if you put no conscious thought into why it is that you're losing or what you could be doing better. He performed at a level which is what, the lowest 10% or 20% of players? Many of whom were probably new to the game because most people will climb in rank over time.

I'm confused by your comment. This is an article about AI potentially helping with treatment of cancer.

I strongly disagree in any case that we shouldn't be investing in AI. I think that there's likely a rising tides lifts all boats effect that occurs with improving AI in general -- it all feeds into each other. People who work on image generators are building expertise in AI and can potentially discover things which advance the field, or inspire others to work in the field. Humanity getting better at making AI generate images, or compete at video games, or predict protein folding, it all probably contributes to the rate of improvement in AI.

And it's not unreasonable to think that AI will one day solve problems like cancer or climate change, so we should very much care about the rate of AI improvement. As for the power concerns, ironically, thanks to the increased demand we are seeing companies like Microsoft and Oracle make large investments in nuclear power now. It could be the case that this kicks starts a boom in the nuclear industry which eventually brings costs / eases regulations enough to put us in a better place in the long run.

It's extremely complex, I don't think we can say at this point that investing in AI in the midst of a climate crisis is a mistake.

It's worse than not working, it's breeding resentment against them and their cause. There are only a handful of replies here so far, and one of them is this

> I hate these people. Van Gogh is my favorite artist. I feel like going out and buying a Hummer.

I have to say, I believe in climate change and that we are doing irreparable harm to our planet and the life on it. But what this group is doing is frankly evil and should be opposed.

There is a limit to how much time I want to spend learning how to do things like that, and then configuring and dealing with a broken system when my exploration goes awry. It's a valid reason.

Yeah, all of the major subreddits are gamed, especially subs like r/politics. Even going back to the 2016 election it was clear that much of the activity on there was not genuine.

> Which one is it? Was the increase "substantial" or was it only 100 bucks?

Not OP, but here is how I interpreted this.

Increase rents substantially -> no one takes it -> decrease rents over time until it hits a rate the market can bare -> people move in when rents are 100 dollars above what the previous tenets were paying.

I think you have to consider that these conversations are taking place in public. When people reply, they're not necessarily replying to convince the person they're speaking directly to (this is often impossible), but rather to convince the reader.

I also didn't get the impression that the parent comment was being unreasonable or resentful. Lisp is often portrayed as being special and a secret weapon. It's reasonable to question that given how little it ends up being used in comparison.

Unfortunate for sure, but it should hardly be surprising if you choose a distro with a small userbase and limited set of maintainers. If it's a significant inconvenience for someone, they should re-evaluate their decision making process around their infrastructure / tool use.

Gridworld comes to mind. I'd be interested in learning of others

https://store.steampowered.com/app/396890/Gridworld/

I'm interested to know what are some things that you (or anyone reading this) feels that Typescript is missing / should change?

Perhaps worth mentioning is that someone attempted to port this to Rust and got about 60,000 lines of code into it before archiving the project. I feel like comparing these two efforts would be an interesting case study on the impacts / benefits / limitations or difficulties, etc involved in rewriting from C++ to Rust.

https://github.com/sidkshatriya/rd/

Ladybird seems to have more momentum and be further along in development in my testing of visiting random websites. This may or may not have something to do with developer velocity of each language, genuinely I don't know but I think it's worth considering.

Regardless, from what I've gathered, Ladybird is going to ship of theseus their way into memory safety. It's not announced what the C++ replacement language will be, but they are working towards that.

I don't use Nim, but it's an interesting language. I've read someone else complaining about having to make changes to an old project every time he went to recompile it. I'm wondering how true this is, so in other words, I'm wondering about the frequency and severity of breaking changes in the language.

I think it's likely that consciousness only occurs in a population which undergoes evolution / natural selection. I think it offers a competitive advantage over other let's say processes which you're competing for resources with. It's unlikely for something like the sun to be conscious, there's no evolutionary pressure exerted on it.

I read a lot of articles like this, and it's usually mentioned that their preferred language is expressive. Here it's mentioned as a dig against the top 10 languages, basically saying that they lack expressivity

> make the language and syntax as simple as possible, and then even simpler at the expense of expressivity

I understand why people say this because you can write these small highly condensed statements which would take a lot of code otherwise to do. I think it's probably the wrong word though. These languages generally prevent you from manually managing memory, which ironically makes expressing some designs or patterns impractical. If you want to express say writing a performant garbage collected language or something, a language like c or c++ is ironically more expressive than these other higher level functional languages with a runtime gc.

It was a hobby recovery project which grew into something more. I feel like people sometimes want to be overly negative or overly critical and contrarian. Should Linus Torvald be viewed with suspicion because of the bad precedent he set when he stated,

> I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones.

Of course not. And if one set their goals ambitiously from the outset, they would be accused of being non-humble. There is no path one can follow which escapes baseless and inane criticisms.

> Of course it's ok to change, but you can also consider that as a precedent and take anything they say now with a grain of salt.

One can also criticize failure to change and adapt, and failure to seize and follow opportunities.

I am very happy to see this. I'm also excited to see what successor language they choose. I wasn't expecting them to integrate with another language, I'm curious to see what they go with.

They go out of their way to make this difficult. I tried disconnecting my internet while installing, but they're apparently wise to that because the option which internet articles claim is there is no longer there. I think there's probably a console dropdown you can bring up when installing to get a local account, but I've decided against fighting the OS. It's so user hostile that it's not worth it to try to turn it into something I like.

This happened to me. I was wondering why my internet speeds were slow when I discovered that Microsoft was in the process of uploading my users directory, they had already uploaded almost two gigs when I realized. They also changed the path to these directories to something like C:\Users\name\OneDrive\Desktop\. Another poster in this thread claimed it's easy to reverse -- I disagree, it's a pain in the ass to track down the setting, and I shouldn't have to do this. When I did, it gave me an error for one of the directories and refuses to revert (documents?).

I don't like leaving negative or hyperbolic comments on HN, but this was enraging and unacceptable to me. It's hard to convey without coming off as unhinged. I only ever boot into Windows nowadays when I need to compile and test a Windows build of software. I understand Microsoft has built up good will through efforts like VS Code, but it's all undone because of things like this. I avoid MS products, they cannot be trusted.

I don't think that's the proper interpretation. It isn't so much that you have to make everything you use, but rather, what you do make you should use.

You are being extremely rude and entitled throughout this entire thread. No one is under any obligation to bring their software to any given platform.

I don't think anyone disagrees that the world would be better if software were freely available on everyone's platform of choice. But you're coming up against fundamental resource limits -- there are only so many people working on a given project and there is only so much time in a day. Resource constraints are why you yourself are not doing the work and resource constraints are why other people are not doing the work.

You answered earlier that it'd be less work for everyone involved if the original authors simply ported the software, and perhaps so, but I'm not convinced of this. I would have a difficult time porting my software to MacOS for example because I've never used the platform. And even if so, I have a limited amount of time on earth. In terms of maximizing utility of my time, I think there is a strong argument that spending my time improving the software quality instead of improving its reach will result more happiness overall. Partly because you cover more than 99% of people by targeting mainstream platforms. FreeBSD for example cannot account for anywhere near 1% marketshare.

In the case of Serenity, it's not yet even in a usable state as a replacement browser. Let them focus on getting it usable. It's the type of thing that will eventually appear on BSD when it gets good enough to be used.

None of this is going to change by you leaving rude comments to the people doing open source work. I think the net result of it, if anything, is reduced interest in porting.

You have to understand and accept that you have made an ideological choice on what platform you use. You have to understand that your platform has an absolutely minimal number of users. The inevitable consequence of this is less software available for your platform. It isn't a grand conspiracy, it isn't spite, it isn't me acting like the BSD's do not deserve ports -- it's just the fundamental nature of reality and resource constraints.

Even folks on Linux are sacrificing on software and convenience and Linux has a market share which is likely multiple orders of magnitude larger than FreeBSD.

I'm sorry you're feeling burned out, but posting mean and entitled comments online is not going to help. It's only going to spread the burnout like a mind virus, causing others to feel burned out themselves.

The audacity to call this shameful is striking to me. If you feel strongly enough that this free, open source, extremely limited resource project (working on one of the largest problem spaces..) doesn't support FreeBSD, port it yourself instead of casting shame on others for not doing it. Hopefully your comment is more lighthearted than I'm giving it credit for.

I think if Lua were adopted as the web language, it would have lost its spirit / design philosophy of simplicity. I think the web would have exerted an evolutionary pressure on whatever language was the chosen as the exclusive way of writing code. Everyone forced to use a single language as the only option plus too many people clamoring for their own pet language feature to be added plus design by committee will probably always lead to a mess.

I ended up turning memory off due to it frequently recording mundane aspects about the current chat session that would have either no value or negative value in future interactions.

"User wants to sort the data x and then do y"

Like, don't save that to your long term memory! I attempted to get it to ask me for permission before using its memory, but it still updated without asking.

> A government study found that in a worst-case scenario, “repeated exposures to zinc cadmium sulfide could cause kidney and bone toxicity and lung cancer.” Yet the Army contends there is no evidence anyone in St. Louis was harmed.

> A spokesperson for the Army said in a statement to the AP that health assessments performed by the Army “concluded that exposure would not pose a health risk,” and follow-up independent studies also found no cause for alarm.

This whole thing is outrageous.

Fedora favors shifting the technological overton window over shipping working software. I first tried Fedora out on the initial release which switched on Wayland by default -- this was in like 2017, or around there. I installed it, booted to the login screen, and then logging in went to a black screen which booted me back to login. I was on an Nvidia card which was unsupported and I had no idea what Wayland was, so I ended up uninstalling it in favor of Linux Mint.

It's not like they weren't aware this wouldn't work for the majority of the desktop marketshare. They didn't try to mitigate this by detecting your card and defaulting to x11. They did not apparently care. Evidently causing friction and getting the ecosystem to switch was more important to them then my machine working with their software.

I'm sure Fedora is great, but I think it's poor form to recommend it to people new to Linux.

It's even a core point for Carbon, their hopeful C++ replacement

Under language goals on their readme,

> We also have explicit non-goals for Carbon, notably including:

> * A stable application binary interface (ABI) for the entire language and library

> * Perfect backwards or forwards compatibility

There's also this blurb

> Our goals are focused on migration from one version of Carbon to the next rather than compatibility between them. This is rooted in our experience with evolving software over time more generally and a live-at-head model. Any transition, whether based on backward compatibility or a migration plan, will require some manual intervention despite our best efforts, due to Hyrum's Law, and so we should acknowledge that upgrades require active migrations.

https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/blob/trunk/do...