hvis

Learning to Be Me by Greg Egan is also apropos.

The usual explanation by Firefox team is that the drivers are not uniformly compliant and/or working well. There had been progress, though.

For your specific system, you can open about:support and search the page for the word "Blocklisted" - that section of the page includes failure codes that can be then passed to web search (or interpreted by name).

I don't know all the details of what works well or not, but the Chrome team logically should have more manpower to implement workarounds for driver problems, and Vivaldi reuses the engine.

Speaking of the other applications though, most of them don't have to use the dma-buf subsystem, to embed hardware rendered content inside a "regular" application. That imposes a certain limitation on the driver capabilities.

Looks basically like the Logo language, except with more sigils and less turtle.

Well you ask a good question, but the examples they give ("optional ads" and "sponsored suggestions") only necessarily imply sharing some aggregates.

Like, for example, "we have this many users in this, that and that countries" - information which ads brokers might require to draw up a contract.

I suppose this is a change from the original "never and nothing" promise, but still a fair distance from the idea of selling of data that most people would imagine, like tracking and sharing your individual browser history.

[I guess I'm biased in favor of Mozilla. If they kick it, among full-featured browser engines only Chromium remains.]

Here's a summary by notegpt:

Summary

Rich Hickey discusses the complexities of optionality in programming, particularly in Clojure’s spec system, emphasizing the need for clear schemas and handling of partial information.

Highlights

* Community Engagement: Acknowledges the presence of both newcomers and regulars at the event.

* Fashion Sense: Introduces a humorous take on the programming roadmap focused on fashion.

* Language Design: Explores the challenges of language design, especially regarding optionality in functions.

* Null References: Cites Tony Hoare’s “billion-dollar mistake” with null references as a cautionary example.

* Spec Improvements: Discusses plans to enhance Clojure’s spec system, focusing on schema clarity and usability.

* Aggregate Management: Emphasizes the importance of properly managing partial information in data structures.

* Future Development: Outlines future directions for Clojure’s spec, prioritizing flexibility and extensibility.

Key Insights

* Community Connection: Engaging with both veteran and new attendees fosters a collaborative environment, enhancing knowledge sharing and community growth.

* Humorous Approach: Infusing humor into technical discussions, like fashion choices, can make complex topics more relatable and engaging.

* Optionality Complexity: The management of optional parameters in programming languages is intricate, requiring careful design to avoid breaking changes.

* Null Reference Risks: Highlighting the historical pitfalls of null references serves as a reminder for developers to consider safer alternatives in language design.

* Schema Clarity: Clear definitions of schemas in programming can significantly improve code maintainability and reduce errors related to optional attributes.

* Information Aggregation: Understanding how to manage and communicate partial information in data structures is crucial for creating robust applications.

* Spec Evolution: Continuous improvement of the spec system in Clojure will enhance its usability, allowing developers to better define and manage their data structures.

Also Moonring. Not as huge as Balatro, but fairly well-known too.

One of you seems to be referring to the external bar (external expectations) and the other to the bar one sets for him/herself.

That difference in perspective seems to be at the root of the disagreement, too.

MoltenVK is also a thing. Whatever small translation overhead it incurs is probably not that important for a text editor. And then you get a cross-platform API: not just Linux, but Windows as well. Maybe also other more niche OSes as well.

Thunderbird is still alive and developing.

When they do "realize" that, B2B companies end up building products that are evaluated by procurement managers but not end users. Lots of examples in the industry.

So I'd really rather most didn't come to that realization. And, well, we as developers do have some influence.

To be fair, sometimes meticulous users investigate the bugs and write down logical chains explaining the causes and even offer a solution at the end (which they can't apply for the lack of commit access, for instance).

The proposed solution isn't always right, of course, but it would be incorrect to say that no bug reports come with a diagnosed cause. But that's exactly where a conscious reviewer is most needed, I believe.

Speaking of text editors and tools like that, you can often avoid having tests (or postpone adding them for a long time), if the logic is on the main execution path, meaning you'll execute it every time you run the program, and whatever failures that can happen, are reasonably easy to pinpoint (i.e. the program shows error backtraces or somehow traces problems otherwise).

This is from my experience hacking on Emacs, naturally.

At the same time, projects that you might ship for an employer or a client, are more critical to check for correctness before deploying, and are often more complex to run and check manually on the regular than writing at least one "happy path" integration test at least for the main scenario (or several).

I guess when the aliens finally arrive, the important part will be to avoid hugging them.

1 and 5 are semi-true, 2 is false (both parts), 3 and 4 are fair enough.

The overall statement is false (he remains the most recognized opposition figure in the country).