That sucks. I've been running the paid version for years - however it's clear that it hasn't been properly maintained for a while and it suffers from sporadic crashes.
Any recommendations for launchers that are functionally similar? The launchers mentioned in this thread so far are quite different.
Lawnchair is similar, but it does have some bugs that they're still working through.
If you're not set in the traditional page/app drawer launcher, I'd recommend Kvaesitso. It's a FOSS search based launcher. A bit of a learning curve but it is very performant and feature rich.
You could also flip that and talk about the risks of when your gasoline supply get shut down due to some event. With an EV stack you can generate your power locally and add resilience that way.
One of the big risks for manufacturers seem to be that EVs are fundamentally more compatible with automated production and allows simplifications to the car stack. It would seem that the costs and risks of the keeping the ICE stack alive will keep increasing over time as it loses relevance to EVs.
I believe this is wrong for many topics. The news media is strongly incentivized to sensationalize and continuously produce content for their readers and viewers. Wikipedia is able to cover many topics that are less contested in a slower and more tempered manner, as the content does not need to be marketable or immediately available. As an example, for STEM topics I'd trust Wikipedia far more than any news media.
For a reputable secondary source to consider writing something it does need to be marketable. This can result in situations where there is an event that happens where only the sensationalist pieces were deemed marketable enough for people to write meaning that the writers of the wikipedia page do not have the option of using non sensationalist sources.
I'm struggling to make sense of this. Parent is saying news media has a financial incentive to grab attention, Wikipedia does not. Best I can make out, you've moved the target by suggesting it's not about how the content of the article itself is written, but rather about the sources it supposedly has to use.
My original comment is about cases where only biased secondary sources exist due to the story not being notable enough to be picked up by other authors. What appears to you as moving the target is clarifying that the situation the replies commented won't happen in the situation I am referring to.
So one can surely imagine cases where the only references are sensationalised/biased new media reporting. However:
1) Isn't this confined to a pretty small proportion of articles, given the breadth of topics Wikipdia covers expands well outside the purview of news media? E.g. any basic physics or math articles, like Electromagnetism or Linear Algebra - a lot of the sources for these seem to be textbooks.
2) Can we not assume any editorial leeway on the part of contributors to try and contextualise such sensationalism/bias? No examples are coming to mind now, but I'm pretty sure I've seen qualifiers in articles at least hinting that the cited source could be potentially problematic.
Wikipedia does not accept primary sources. News media are acceptable to them so if they are sensationalist, then it follows that Wikipedia is sensationalist. Having said that, Wikipedia bans outlets which don't follow the former's world view, which then reinforces its lack of credibility in non-STEM topics.
When using the OpenTelemetry Collector you might need a set of modules not supported by a standard distribution, e.g. the otelcol-k8s variant but with some extra exporter from otelcol-contrib. I found building such a custom distribution a bit cumbersome but that it was made much easier by this project.
Rust runs quite well today via WebAssembly. Continuing to improve interop between Web API / WASM / language runtimes seems like a good route that allows people to use the language they prefer against shared Web APIs.
What's really neat is that most of the problems are so compact that you can just read about the full problem, then spend hours and days thinking about possible solutions.
Isn't is good that there are some forcing factors to help ensure the quality of the content? I get that there's plenty of drama and difficulties in building and moderating the content of Wikipedia, but it certainly does not appear to stagnate in terms of content if you are looking at e.g. the number of articles on English Wikipedia. The overall process appears to produce great outcomes and it is the greatest collection of knowledge created.
I took it as a statement that it is prohibitively difficult to contribute to Wikipedia, and wanted to point out that a large number of contributions are being made and the resulting quality being high, in part due to the difficulty of making contributions.
My comment was disputing the statement above that anyone can just stick junk in Wikipedia. While yes anyone can submit edits, it's pretty hard to get them accepted so the content on Wikipedia is more reliable than just a public notepad.
My statement was that the quality of Wikipedia overall is high, and that one of the reasons for that is because they set and enforce standards for contributions.
Certainly many people are put off by the process and will not have time to deal with it, but my belief would be that such cases are more likely on more controversial topics, and less likely for less controversial topics. Inherently, collaborating on difficult topics will be a difficult process, which also means that there are likely no easy answers for how to make this process not discourage anyone.
The forcing factors aren't what they are supposed to be though. "Credible" sources and citations are exclusively up to the article moderators personal tastes which are very rarely objective.
> The forcing factors aren't what they are supposed to be though.
Is it clear what they should rather be - and are there any examples of mechanisms that have worked better at a scale like this? How are you judging that they are not what they are supposed to be?
If the resulting body of work, which is the totality of Wikipedia, is able to be a curated and high signal collection of knowledge as a result of these mechanisms, how can it be said that they are not working? Having forcing factors, even if they are not ideally aligned or executed, which pushes contributors to increase the quality of their edits to pass, seems overall like a good thing. I'm not saying that its processes and mechanisms cannot be improved, I'm saying I believe it is incorrect to say that they are not working as a whole.
> "Credible" sources and citations are exclusively up to the article moderators personal tastes which are very rarely objective.
Overall I believe Wikipedia to be curated by a large group of people which coordinate through various rules and consensus mechanisms, where I don't believe it is correct to state that sources and citations are exclusively up to any specific article moderators, as they need to be able to build consensus and co-exist with other moderation.
Exactly because Wikipedia is such a large body of work it seems more resistant to corruption to have a large number of curators with different tastes and motivations. How would you determine that their selection of sources and citations is very rarely objective - especially when objectiveness itself seems quite hard to agree upon for many of the topics covered?
From my perspective it seems far more important to consider the quality and value of the totality of Wikipedia, which is massive and signs that many things are working, rather than insisting that it is not working, especially in times where knowledge is being broadly attacked, and where Wikipedia is one of the targets.
Any recommendations for launchers that are functionally similar? The launchers mentioned in this thread so far are quite different.
reply