I may be misinformed but the article says

We’ve verified that every AST produced by the Rust parser is identical to the C++ one, and all bytecode generated by the Rust compiler is identical to the C++ compiler’s output.

which I took to mean that the new code behaves 100% identically to the old code, like a byte-perfect decompilation. If that’s not the case and it’s just the same in their suite of tests then I’d agree with you.

Yeah, using AI to help you rewrite code (which is tedious) in a scenario where there are clear test cases (it either works or it doesn’t) is basically the ideal usecase.

Actually not a terrible way to use AI. Hopefully the port goes well

I hate when that happens on mobile, do they think people have infinite data??

That said, this is a reminder that Firefox is no longer open source. It’s source available

How so? It’s still licensed under the MPL, an open source license.

not true, the only one that’s just a rebranded pre-existing app is tchap, and most of them are made from scratch

tbh, even bad phone software is miles ahead of standard auto software

You can also have a non-algorithmic feed on bsky, the algo “discover” feed is only one of the options, and you can make your own feed with a set of hashtags and keywords

This is really cool, this would be great to do to a steam deck with a broken motherboard

edit: got to the price part, oof

Ah, merci de me l’avoir dit, je le corrigerai.

edit: corrigé

I 100% agree, but I didn’t want to come across too accusatory in my article so I chose to indirectly adress it in this paragraph:

The real problem is the idea that GNOME project shouldn’t cater to [people who want SSD]. It would be like GNOME not supporting xdg-file-chooser and saying that each app should ship their own file picker. But GNOME does support it, and only apps that wish to implement their own file picker do so.

Since both approaches are used, and liked, miscellaneous advantages and disadvantages of either approach are irrelevant, and so are other arguments pertaining to design. This is why I haven’t brought them up.

basically saying I think their vision doesn’t matter when it comes to supporting things like that for third party apps.

looks great! Thank you for making this

I have no source for this but I remember reading something about the new login manager a while ago that said it would follow the plasma theme. So hopefully that.

do copy paste ad hoc without altering your clipboard content.

Thing is modern clipboard managers like the one on kde server and equivalent purpose.

My mouse’s middle click is easy to hit accidentally, and so I often paste stuff on accident, I just wish I could disable it. The “select to copy” doesn’t work for me either, since I often absentmindedly select things while I’m reading.

The reaction that I see here explains why, I guess.

It’s cool, but I cannot count the amount of times I was confused by that and accidentally pasted after switching, I would be glad if it became configurable.

It’s a tad slower than a desktop rx 480

If you don’t understand that the motivation is to target kids with ads and influencer content designed to push products, you’re not going to solve anything.

I 100% agree that social media companies are incentivized to make their platforms toxic to children, and that people on those platforms are motivated to exploit them, but immoral people existing is not the problem here.

Kids have to have spaces to communicate with each other in order to develop healthy socialization skills.

They don’t have to use social media for that though, not only are third spaces alive and well in many places including much of France (and where I live), chat apps are 100% enough for kids to socialize.

I know that every teen where I live uses instagram to communicate with friends, but only the group/1to1 chats and stories, which are available in chat apps. The main feed(s) never show you things from your friends anyways.

I feel like you are envisioning “chat apps” to mean “text-only”

No, when I think of chat apps I think of signal and discord. Both have a ton of social features, the difference is that there isn’t an algorithm that acts as a vector for harmful bullshit or public profiles. Public rooms are still an issue, but from experience being a tween/teen on those platforms, it’s not even close to being as bad. Said bad actors do not exist in anywhere near the same capacity. Imo the harm of public chat rooms falls under the “parents can handle this” umbrella.

If it was the case that it was just individual actors on the platform causing the harm and not the structure of the platforms incentivizing said harm, then we would see more of this type of thing in real life as well.

I struggle to think of a more complete solution to the harm caused by social media to children than just banning them.

I may have misunderstood your thesis though, and in that case please correct me.

Which part do you think I’m lying about?