Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | dminik's commentslogin

There's this reply in the comments from the author.

> Nah, it’s a problem with this particular mouse in X and Wayland and it’s been seen on Fedora and OpenSuse almost since the mouse came out. Not a Cachy issue, a nonstandard USB HID implementation by the vendor

Tbh, I don't even know what a distro would have to do to break this.


It's kind of funny, but I had the exact opposite experience. I couldn't get VSCode to reliably format Typescript/React code across several projects. Some would work and others would not. Sometimes it would format, but with wrong settings.

Frustrated, I switched to Zed and have not had that issue since.


Fascinating. Can you share your non-private Zed config? I still have mine from before the switch - I'd like to compare.


Considering how many people will defend C++ compilers bending over backwards to exploit some accidental undefined behaviour with "but it's fast though" then yeah, that's not an inaccurate assessment.


I think there's certainly some blame that falls on the engineers at Facebook. But, in my experience, if you put any number of developers in a room, noone is going to come up with "let's help scam the elderly". That requires an MBA or two.


Nah, engineers like to solve problems. The silicon valley jerk ratio scene doesn't come out of nowhere. You can get engineers to work on solving just about any problem if you make it interesting enough to them.


It's not really a tax though. Other platforms offer a lower percentage (Epic: 0% up to 1000000 copies sold and 12% above) and yet the prices on Epic aren't cheaper than on steam.

If the final price doesn't change based on the storefront cut, then as a consumer, I don't care.


Doesn't Steam have a price-parity clause in their contracts with developers?

https://www.wolfire.com/blog/2021/05/Regarding-the-Valve-cla...


Freedom is dead when a single implementation is replaced with several competing implementations implementing an open standard.


Just so it’s clear:

The X Window System (X11) is a protocol with multiple implementations. Sure, the X.Org Server (Xorg) was the most popular by a huge margin, but there were quite a few others (e.g. XFree86, Xming, XWayland), though over time most were discontinued for one reason or another.

X11 and Wayland do differ in an important way: in X11 window managers (GNOME, KDE, i3, whatever) all sat atop the Xorg server; whereas in Wayland there’s only the compositor, so GNOME, KDE, Sway, whatever, all essentially include their own equivalent of Xorg (which could be fully integrated, or factored into a library, such as Mutter, KWin, wlroots).


Every single X server you list is a fork of XFree86, and every X server I'm aware of is a fork of the original X11R1 (or later) release from MIT.

Please cite a single independent implementation of an X11 protocol server.


There were plenty of those, including commercial ones.

It's pretty hard to find but ~25 years ago I was using Xi Graphics Accelerated-X which had 3D acceleration long before Xfree86.

Update: but yes I imagine it had some code from original MIT release.

For completely independent one you can have a look at WeirdX/WiredX, which was written in Java and even supported antialiasing and transparency for core protocol (something that Xfree86 people claimed to be impossible to implement).

It's surprisingly hard to find this stuff today: https://web.archive.org/web/20250220140358/http://www.jcraft...


Oh, WeirdX, that's one I hadn't heard of.

The commercial ones (Xsun, Xsgi, Hummingbird, DESQView/X etc.) were all based on MIT code.


> And you've entirely failed to address the largess of Rust, which, again, for a "systems language" is entirely mismatched.

I'm not entirely sure where this idea even comes from. Why would it be desirable for a systems programming language to be sparse on features?


And this is one of the disadvantages of JSX. The snippets you posted are NOT identical.

JSX (react flavor) is lazy. <My component> is not rendered/evaluated until it's needed.

You can't just call a react component. It's not a regular function call.


There's no indication that an AGI mind will adopt human-like values. Nor that the smarter something gets, the more benevolent it is. The smartest humans built the atom bomb.

Not that human values are perfectly benevolent. We slaughter billions of animals per day.

If you take a look at the characteristics of LLMs today, I don't think we want to continue further. We're still unable to ensure the goals we want the system to have are there. Hallucinations are a perfect example. We want these systems to relay truthful information, but we've actually trained them to relay information that looks correct at first glance.

Thinking we won't make this mistake with AGI is ignorance.


You're attacking a strawman argument that isn't what I, or OP were saying.


The article follows with this:

> Mammals, which are more generally intelligent than reptiles or earthworms, also tend to have more compassion and warmth.

> There’s deep intertwining between intelligence and values

After reading your original comment again, I don't think you're even agreeing with the article? Just with that specific out of context snippet?


Ok, I'm confused here.

I had a look at what Stallman said and what Minsky allegedly did.

Apparently, Minsky had sex with one of Epstein's girls, who later said she was forced into it. Now, his wife denies the allegation, as she was apparently with him at all times on Epstein's island.

Now, I can believe that he went once, and maybe had sex with someone he didn't know was not doing so willingly. But, what about his wife? Was he cheating on her? Was she a part of it?

And why did he return a second time? And after Epstein's conviction in 2011???

And here comes Stallman, and he's not even denying that he's slept with someone, potentially cheating on his wife? His issue is with the wording?

Nobody in this situation looks good.


> His issue is with the wording?

Pretty obviously.

He is a weird, socially awkward, maybe autistic guy. And such people tend to be quite pedantic and focused on strange details that "normal" people just jump over.


See my sibling comment.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45722901

I disagree it's "pedantic". I think it's taking advantage of the system.


His issue is that saying "assault" to mean "sex with someone" is dishonest, even if that person is 17. Which is obviously is.

Any sane person hears "assault" and thinks that means "assault" instead it means something else.

What is happening is that the meaning of words are being changed for the purpose of using pre-existing laws. Example, you think that Bla is very bad and isn't punished enough by the law. There's law that severaly punishes Fleem. So, whenever you see Bla you call it Fleem and argue that the anti-Fleem law applies. That way you can effectively re-purpose a law. Specific example: "catcalling" is now "sexual assault" in the UK. It's easier to do it this way, than to argue that people should be punished for catcalling.


Ok, but surely there are more important thing going on there than the wording.

It feels like Stallman wants to defend his friend, but doesn't really have any way to do that. So, instead, he pivots to pedantry.

Like ok, assuming that Marvin really did not know, it's wrong to label him as a sexual assaulter(?). Though legally a sexual assault still occured.

But, it still doesn't explain, justify or deny that he allegedly slept with someone , possibly behind his wife's back. And it also doesn't explain that they went *BACK* to Epstein's island after knowing he was a sex trafficker. And that presumably the girl he slept with might have also been trafficked.


> Ok, but surely there are more important thing going on there than the wording.

Correct, it's the abuse of the legal system.

> Though legally a sexual assault still occured.

Just because something is true legally doesn't mean it's ok, good, correct, moral or ethical.


If the victim really was coerced/forced, then there is no wordplay going on here. No legal tricks. No abuse of the legal system.

We're talking about sex trafficking, which we know did occur and Epstein was convicted of. Twice.

And possibly rape/sexual assault, even though the "perpetrator" did not know about it.

You're getting awfully close to defending Epstein there.

I also can't help but notice that you ignored everything else in my comment?


> If the victim really was coerced/forced

Coerced/forced by whom? Are you actually stupid or just pretending?


What do you mean by whom? This conversation isn't about Mickey Mouse. Epstein was convicted for trafficking (eg. coercing/forcing) women.


The specific point I'm talking about is the accusation of Minsky. To my point (and Stallman's) doesn't matter if coersion was done by Epstein or Mickey Mouse.

Anyway, I get that you're confused. However, I've lost interest in talking to you.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: