Really? That’s interesting. But the group membership list must be persisted somewhere, no? Otherwise, you wouldn’t know where to send and receive messages. So where is it persisted then?
And also, how would you add someone to a group? When you add a new user to a group, would he be able to view all previous messages? Is it possible for this to scale to, say, a thousand or a million users?
But they must still have your phone number and associate it with your username. So it would still be easy for a government organization to force Signal to give up the identities of all people who join a group.
Wikipedia is quite resilient - you can even put it on a USB drive. As long as you have a free operating system, there will always be ways to access it.
Agreed. People just think the first tool that they learned is the easiest to use. I’ve been a longtime Gimp user and find it pretty easy to do what I want.* The few times someone asked me to do something in Photoshop, I was pretty helpless. Of course, I’m a pretty basic user - I wouldn’t dispute that Photoshop is more powerful, but which one is easier to use is very subjective and the vast majority of the time, it just boils down to which one you use more often.
I’ve seen the same with people who grew up on Libreoffice and then started smashing their computer when they were asked to use MSOffice.
To add to subignition’s point, there is a value in learning useful software. More complicated software means that there is a learning curve - so while you are less productive while learning how to use it, once you gain more experience, you ultimately become more productive. On the other hand, if you want the software to be useful to everyone regardless of his level of experience, you ultimately have to eliminate more complex functionality that makes the software more useful.
Software is increasingly being distilled down to more and more basic elements, and ultimately, I think that means that people are able to get less done with them these days. This is just my opinion, but in general I have seen computer literacy dropping and people’s productivity likewise decreasing, at least from what I’ve observed from the 1990s up until today. Especially at work, the Linux users that I see are much more knowledgeable and productive than Apple users.
But without Microsoft’s “PC on every desktop” vision for the '90s, we may not have seen such an increased demand for server infrastructure which is all running the Linux kernel now.
Debatable, in my opinion. There were lots of other companies trying to build personal computers back in those times (IBM being the most prominent). If Microsoft had never existed (or gone about things in a different way), things would have been different, no doubt, but they would still be very important and popular devices. The business-use aspect alone had a great draw and from there, I suspect that adoption at homes, schools, etc. would still follow in a very strong way.
Whatever. The next generation will have to learn to trust whether the material is true or not by using sources like Wikipedia or books by well-regarded authors.
The other thing that he doesn’t understand (and most “AI” advocates don’t either) is that LLMs have nothing to do with facts or information. They’re just probabilistic models that pick the next word(s) based on context. Anyone trying to address the facts and information produced by these models is completely missing the point.
100% agree. But I like posting articles like these because it brings me back to how I learned programming, and Linux specifically - namely by reading a bunch of articles from similar link aggregators and sharing sites.
My hope is that sharing articles like these is a form of planting the seeds for another cycle for people to learn the way that I did.
I just disabled this today and life is so much better. Thanks! Everything works so much better now.
There are a lot of other helpful replies in this thread, so I won’t add much, but I did find this reference, which you could read if you have a lot of free time. But I particularly liked reading this summary:
- _start calls the libc __libc_start_main;
- __libc_start_main calls the executable __libc_csu_init (statically-linked part of the libc);
- __libc_csu_init calls the executable constructors (and other initialisatios);
- __libc_start_main calls the executable main();
- __libc_start_main calls the executable exit().
Reserving main is definitely more hacky. Try compiling multiple objects with main defined into a single binary - it won’t go well. This can make a lot of testing libraries rather convoluted, since some want to write their own main while others want you to write it because require all kinds of macros or whatever.
On the other hand, if __name__ == "__main__" very gracefully supports having multiple entrypoints in a single module as well as derivative libraries.
Is it? I really don’t think so. What can you propose that’s better? I think if __name__ == __main__ works perfectly fine and can’t really think of anything that would be better.
And you don’t have to use it either if you don’t want to anyway, so no, I don’t think it’s that much of a hack. Especially when the comic compares C as an example, which makes no sense to me whatsoever.
Vim when I can, and when I can’t, Neovim with plugins (LazyVim). Both are fast. I have had troubles with Neovim and configuration, and it does some things that really annoy me (like autoclosing parentheses - it just messes up everything). Honestly, the only feature that I really need is Go To Definition.
But vim - I absolutely love it. I started using it nearly 20 years ago and it still does everything one could want if you’re willing to learn the keymaps and commands. Macros, ci), block indentation and so on. It’s even great for editing XML. If the codebases I’m working on these days weren’t so large and complicated, I would still be using it with very little configuration in my .vimrc.
And the ones that stay behind will be the kinds of teammates nobody wants to work with.
Google is already falling behind in pretty much every area where they have competition and getting sued in all the areas where they have driven the competition out. It will really be great to see their business shrink given what they have become in the 2010s.
On the other hand, it’s also really sad to see what they’ve become too. They used to be a really admirable company around the early 2000s. So many people were cheering for them as a company run by engineers, doing things differently and running all over the incumbent assholes everybody hated like Microsoft. There was a time when it felt like Google was a company for real people fighting back against the machine. But then they became the machine themselves.
The good Google is dead. I’d love to see them get completely buried.
Git turns 20: A Q&A with Linus Torvalds
Pretty sure he’s older than that. And calling people names isn’t nice!
Same here. Sure, KDE and Gnome may have great Wayland support by now, but what about other DEs? The situation in XFCE seems to be pretty grim:
It is not clear yet which Xfce release will target a complete Xfce Wayland transition (or if such a transition will happen at all).
MATE seems to have piecemeal support. No idea what the status of LXDE/LXQT are. And there are plenty of other window managers that don’t have the manpower to support wayland either.
The deprecation of X is going to leave a lot of dead software in its wake.
Really fascinating how this is happening in coordination all of a sudden. I’m practically certain that this is all coming from a small group of investors (maybe even just a couple) who are trying to influence companies as hard as they can into making everyone to start using it.