Wayland+sway switch from x11+i3 is so simple and works so well.
Only minor annoying thing not working for me are right-click context menus on some applets like Blueman and Steam.
Nvidia's official drivers have supported Wayland quite well since the 550-series. If you haven't tried it in a few years, now is a great time to give it a spin.
My problems with Wayland are KDE specific. I tired it, but there where so many window management regressions and sometimes graphical glitches that I switched back. But that was under plasma 6.4. Have to try again now on 6.5 to see if these issues are fixed. If not I should write a bug report, I guess.
Also there needs to be an alternative for (or patch to) simplescreenrecorder that works under Wayland. I don't want use a complex thing like OBS to make a quick demo video to demonstrate something for a co-worker and stuff.
Didn't know Spectacle can do screen recordings now. Just tried it: The "New Recording" button seems to be broken. It does nothing. No error message on the terminal even. Maybe it only works under Wayland?
Personally I like Rust, but I'm against rewriting old well tested tools in Rust just because. There is this opinion out there that Rust devs rewrite everything for no good reason, but I only really saw that happening in coreutils and sudo. In the other cases that I heard of the rewrite wasn't from C/C++ (but e.g. from JavaScript and they need more speed) or they needed a rewrite anyway for different reasons (e.g. first working parallel style calculation in Firefox).
So I'm very skeptical of the coreutils rewrite. In the current state it's incomplete, slower (not optimized), and replacing all GPL code with MIT/BSD code also feels strange to me.
Worth mentioning that Bubblewrap[1] (bwrap) can remove most npm/node attack vectors or, at the very least, limit the damage from running arbitrary code during install/execution. Far from a silver bullet, and you'll want to combine it with a simple wrapper script to avoid dinking around with all its arguments, but it beats dealing with rootless Podman containers.
This looks really interesting, but it sounds like it's as complicated to setup as rootless Podman — which is to say not _that_ complicated. Anyone using this with Node or Deno successfully?
I always thought a screenshot of code was just an iPeople flex. Like, "look at my code, framed in this glassy macOS window with a $29.99 drop shadow." Kinda like how Nix or Arch users can't resist mentioning they use Nix or Arch. (btw i use arch)
At long last, a personal robot that can shatter my Waterford glassware and then clean up all the pieces! Sure, it moves like something out of a nightmare, but it makes sense that much of its marketing is aimed at seniors. It's a large and growing market, and the need is undeniable, given that few can afford a full-time caregiver. And from that perspective, the $20,000 price tag almost feels like a steal.
A human-knitted marvel that does it all. From telling cayenne apart from paprika to cleaning your toilet.... well, maybe. From what I can tell, it can flush but not wipe, so you'll still want to budget for a bidet.
Technically, it makes Level-5 autonomy look straightforward. At least roads have rules and standards; household bathrooms, not so much. But let's gloss over that, because I want to know more about the legal agreement you'll have to sign. IANAL, but I expect something akin to a carpet-bombing of blanket disclaimers: no liability for direct, indirect, incidental, consequential, punitive, or other damages—including injuries or loss of life—or really anything else that could go wrong, such as losing your mail, opening your door to assist in a robbery, setting your house on fire, flooding it, or sending your banking information to a Nigerian prince. Too bad iRobot never got around to explaining the legal side of things, but there's always hope for iRobot 2.
The UX only sucks if you're unwilling to put in a minimal amount of time and effort. After that, it has no equal; it is, by definition, the opposite of vanity.
Regarding point 1 - when you say "a few minutes," I'm wondering if we're talking about the same thing? I spent two solid months with Claude Max, before they imposed limits, running multiple Opus agents, and never once got anywhere close to "weeks of work" from a single prompt. Not even in the same zip code.
So I'm genuinely asking: could you pretty please share one of these prompts? Just one. I'd honestly prefer discovering I can't prompt my way out of a paper bag rather than facing the reality that I wasted a bucketload of time and money chasing such claims.
So basically your source is: "trust me bro, I'll prove it to you?"
I think it is a relevant question. We cannot go around calling someone genius prompt engineers, and then skip the engineering part of noting down what actually works and how it can be replicated. Could we try to work backwards not from the perspective of the problems of the person asking the question, but perhaps work backwards from your claims (I.e. to where you have them from)
not at all. I'm happy to provide the prompts. Let's just agree on what 2+ weeks coding problem we are trying to solve first. If I just pick one and show you the prompt I used you'll say "no way would that have taken over 2 weeks."
If a giant red warning saying 'THIS APP MAY BE MALWARE' doesn't stop someone, then they've either made an informed choice to proceed or it's willful negligence. In other words, users aren't 'trained' to ignore warnings; they're simply being willfully negligent.
It’s because on the other side of that warning is a cracked version of Spotify that removes the adverts.
The user can’t make an informed choice because it’s literally impossible to audit the safety of the app or the author. So they will click passed any warnings, follow any number of steps to install the app that gives them something desirable for free.
As someone who is usually careful I too have found myself clicking past warnings and error notifications in recent times, mainly because I want to do something and the software is actively preventing me from doing that. It isn't negligence, it is just wanting to get something done and not having the time or the nerves to carefully read through and think about messages, dialogs, and screens.
Back in the early days of the Internet there was the Joel Spolsky article on why users will always do anything to see the dancing bunnies.
It doesn’t matter what adjectives you apply to them - they do it and they’ll do it again. Most people are not equipped to evaluate the veracity of that statement, and if a few good apps don’t register with Google (that these will exist is the whole reason this move is problematic at all, right?) and ask you to click through on the website or whatever, they’ll get used to touching the stove and not getting burned.
c.f. the Windows “it could be malware” blurb. You basically can’t use any software from a small publisher without clicking through it, even if they pay for the code signing certificate.
But then you get situations like, "THIS PRODUCT MAY CAUSE CANCER," being cautioned everywhere, with no distinction between, "this is certainly harmful," and "we just haven't verified it isn't harmful".
The fact that you don't even realise why that wouldn't work is kind of telling.
> users aren't being 'trained' to ignore warnings
Of course they are. Every time they click "continue anyway" and it actually isn't malware (which is 99% of the time) they are being trained that the warning is nonsense.
And they're right! What use is a warning that an app might be malware, if a) it actually isn't almost every time you see the warning, and b) you have no way of telling if it is or isn't anyway?
I hate this move too and I don't think they should have done "just make the warning even bigger!" is obviously dumb.
It's such a simple and effective solution that could be implemented overnight and 'help to cut down on bad actors who hide their identity to distribute malware, commit financial fraud, or steal users personal data' tomorrow. Mission accomplished, internet saved, and everyone's happy just like a fairy tale out of the early 2000s.
