This is sadly why windows will always prevail. You can't expect volunteers to deliver correct drivers, even if they spend a lot of time reverse engineering things.

It's 2025 and I would have expected the linux foundation or canonical to at least create a label "linux compatible" or "linux tested", so that brands can license it, and maybe spend money to collaborate with hardware vendors so they can write correct drivers, but that has not happened.

I am not saying linux/OSS is at fault here, but I am confused why the situation is still so bad. You can even find several governments ready to use linux, but it's not reliable enough yet, or maybe they're too tech-illiterate.

Open source/linux folks are so politicized against capitalism, proprietary software and patents that they excluded themselves from the economy. Only valve and the steam machine might have a chance of changing that situation but it's not even guaranteed.

I keep giving proprietary software chances. A polished experience has value. I'm willing to pay for software. I'll even tolerate subscriptions when they come with continuous added value.

Then Google gives HSBC the ability to lock people out of their banking app if they installed a third-party password manager from the "wrong" app store and I start to think RMS was right about everything.

"and I start to think RMS was right about everything"

Does it always has to be this extreme?

I always thought he was right about some things, but wrong about others. (And all in all not great as a public face for the organisation)

I'm capped on the amount of money I can transfer out of my RBS app unless I send RBS a recording of my face and voice. Why the hell can't I opt out of dystopian "security" measures and accept the risk?

I opened my browser on the same device and transfered it that way. So much for "security".

> It's 2025 and I would have expected the linux foundation or canonical to at least create a label "linux compatible" or "linux tested", so that brands can license it, and maybe spend money to collaborate with hardware vendors so they can write correct drivers, but that has not happened.

A few distros do have something like this. Ubuntu has the "Ubuntu Certified" program https://ubuntu.com/certified and Fedora has "Fedora Ready" https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/marketing/ready/list/ . For a situation like this, that doesn't really matter though. Linux does run on the laptop and Lenovo does officially support running Linux on it. If there's a problem with the CPU scheduling or something for that line of processors, Intel would have to fix it, not Lenovo.

> Open source/linux folks are so politicized against capitalism, proprietary software and patents that they excluded themselves from the economy. Only valve and the steam machine might have a chance of changing that situation but it's not even guaranteed.

I don't know what you're talking about here. The vast majority of Linux kernel development is done by companies, not unpaid volunteers. This has been the case since at least as far back as the mid 2000s.

You comment as if having windows ensures you have perfect laptop power management every time.

It doesn’t. I’ve had windows laptops that burn power when closed and apparently sleeping (in fact we still have it, a Lenovo yoga device), or just run up the fans when idle.

I’ve also had a MacBook that once in a while would be hot and thrashing its fans when I retrieved it from my bag (retina MBP 2014 IIRC)

To me it feels like rust is barely readable sometimes. When I read some rust cost, I am often incapable to guess what it does, so it does not feel intuitive.

I wish they made something simpler. At least C and C++ have a low barrier of entry and any beginner can write code.

I don't think the borrow checker forced rust to be such a complicated language.

C++ doesn't have low barrier of entry, I almost quit programming as a teen because of C++.

Imo the worst thing about starting out with C++ (which is much better with Rust), is the lack of credible package management/build system that allows you to just install packages.

This used to be even more true previously than today. Nowadays, there's stuff like vcpkg, and tons of resources, but I still wouldn't call it straightforward compared to something like nuget or cargo.

It tooke me more time to figure out CMake than entire other programming languages.

It does really help, in modern languages where they provide tools in the box and the ecosystem just accepts those as the default† tools, to have the default be that when you make a new project it just works, often by having it print "Hello, World!" or something else simple but definitive as proof we made a program.

† Default means just that, neither Rust's own compiler nor the Linux kernel need the cargo tooling, but these projects both have actual toolsmiths to maintain their build infrastructure and your toy program does not. There should be a default which Just Works at this small scale.

> the lack of credible package management

APT/dpkg/yast/rpm/pacman/... ?

Make is very simple, you don't even need a makefile. Just type "make main" for main.cpp and it works.

There's a weird cognitive bias where somehow people justify "I compiled this Hello World C++ project " as "C++ is easy" and yet "I wasn't able to understand how this optimized linear algebra library works" gets classed as "Rust is hard".

In reality it matters what you already know, and whether you want to understand deeply or are just interested in enough surface understanding to write software. There's a reason C++ has an entire book about its many, many types of initialization for example.

> At least C and C++ have a low barrier of entry and any beginner can write code.

C/C++ is great at giving that false sense of competence. Then suddenly you're getting a segfault, and you'll never determine why with beginner knowledge, since the crash-line and the mistake-line aren't even in the same zipcode (and or same Git changeset).

Rust forces you to not "skip" knowledge steps. If you have a gap in your knowledge/understanding the compiler will call you out immediately. C/C++ will happily let your dangerously bad code compile and kinda-run, until it doesn't.

I'm not anti-C/C++, I've actually written tons. I love C in particular. But saying that they're beginner-friendly feels wrong, a lot of people quit the language because "random stuff" starts to go wrong, and they lack the knowledge to determine why.

Yep. I've heard it said that Rust forces you to experience all the pain up front. C will happily compile very broken code.

One of my formative memories learning C came after I wrote a function which accidentally returned a pointer to a variable on the stack. It took me about a week to track that bug down. I found it eventually - and then realised the compiler had been warning me about it the whole time. I'd just been ignoring the warnings "while I got my code working". Ugh. The rust borrow checker wouldn't let you even compile code like that.

If you're going to be working in a programming language for years or even decades, I think the extra complexity (and extra difficulty while learning) is an investment that will pay off. But I'd be very happy for rust to stay a niche language for systems software. C#, Go, Typescript and Swift seem like great choices for making webpages and apps.

Yes, Rust has a pretty steep learning curve. If you're not writing very low level stuff and don't need to squeeze out every last bit of performance, there are many other, simpler languages to choose from.

I think we may safely assume that Rust's designers are smart people that have made every effort to keep Rust as simple as it can be, given its intended use.

If you're not writing very low level stuff and don't need to squeeze out every last bit of performance, Rust code can be very simple and easy to understand as well.

I think the barrier to entry with Rust is lower than C++. Like was way lower... And I've been writing C++ for way long than Rust, so I'm probably a bit biased

> To me it feels like rust is barely readable sometimes. [...] C++ have a low barrier of entry and any beginner can write code.

Here's rust code:

    fn main() {
        println!("Hello, world");
    }

Here is the equivalent C++ for the vast majority of its life (any time before C++23, has MS even shipped C++23 support yet?):

    #include <iostream>

    int main() {
      std::cout << "Hello World!" << std::endl;
      return 0;
    }

C++ initialisation alone is a more complex topic than pretty much any facet of Rust. And it's not hard to find C++ which is utterly inscrutable.

> To me it feels like rust is barely readable sometimes. When I read some rust cost, I am often incapable to guess what it does, so it does not feel intuitive.

I feel torn with this sentiment.

On one hand, I totally agree. Rust's "foreign" ideas (borrowck, lifetimes, match expressions, traits, etc) make it harder to learn because there's a bunch of new concepts that nobody has really worked with before. Some of this stuff - lifetimes and borrows especially - really demand a lot of imagination on behalf of the programmer to be able to understand what's actually going on. The amount of thinking I do per shipped line of code seems higher for rust than it does for languages like Go, Typescript and C#. And sometimes C.

On the other hand, I learned C about 30 years ago. Not only have I forgotten how hard it was to learn, but I had the brain of a teenager at the time. And now I'm in my (early) 40s. I'm scared that some of the struggle I went through learning rust came because my brain is old now, and I've forgotten what its like to be out of my depth with a programming language. Learning rust requires shaking up some old neurons. And that's really good for us, but it sucks.

In reality, I think its a bit of both. I've been using rust a lot for about 3-4 years now. Its gotten way easier. But I still prototype a fair bit of algorithmic code in typescript first because I find TS makes it easier to iterate. That implies rust is actually more complex. But, some people pick rust as their first language and it seems to work out fine? I'm not sure.

> I don't think the borrow checker forced rust to be such a complicated language.

Which parts of rust seem complicated? I've found a lot of the things I struggled with at first got a lot easier with familiarity. I love traits and match expressions. I love rust's implementation of generics. I love most things about cargo and the module system. But also, some parts of rust annoy me a lot more now, a few years in.

I disagree with your comment. I think the main source of complexity in rust comes from lifetimes - which are required by the borrow checker. For example, its not obvious when you need to put lifetimes in explicitly and when you can elide them. When does the borrow checker understand my code? (Eg, can you mutably borrow two different elements in an array at the same time?). I also still don't really understand Higher-Rank Trait Bounds.

I also still find Pin really confusing. In general I think async and Futures in rust have some big design flaws. It also really bothers me that there's a class of data types that the compiler can generate and use, which are impossible to name in the language. And some of the rules around derive and traits are annoying and silly. Eg derive(Clone) on a generic struct adds the constraint T: Clone, which is straight out wrong. And rust needs a better answer to the orphan rule.

But in general, if you take out the borrow checker, I find rust to be simpler and easier to read than most C++. There's no headers. No exceptions. No wild template nonsense. And there's generally way less weird magic going on. Eg, Foo(bar); could mean about 8 different things in C++. Rust isn't like that. Rust is simple enough you can just read the standard library, even as a beginner, and its great. C++'s STL is a disaster to read.

Rust is definitely more complex than C. But you do get some lovely features for that extra cognitive overhead. Whether or not thats worth it is up to you. In general - and I've been saying this for years - I feel like the language I really want is rust 2. I can't wait for someone to take rust's best ideas and refine them into a simpler language.

I feel exactly the same - C++ might be a much more complex and arcane language when you consider its entire feature set, and all the syntactic machinery (I figured out by looking at STL or Boost code, just how much of C++ I don't know or understand), you can choose to not engage with most of the language. Hell, even stuff like unique_ptr is optional when you're just starting out.

But with Rust, you have to understand almost all of the language very intimately to be a productive programmer, and Rust is not that great at hiding complexity, as in fairly innocious decisions often have far-reaching consequences down the line.

> you have to understand almost all of the language very intimately to be a productive programmer,

I've seen absolute Rust noobs write production code in Rust, I have no idea where did you get that notion from. Most of the apps I've written or I've worked with don't even need to use explicit lifetimes at all. If you don't need absolute performance with almost none memory allocations, it's honestly not rocket science. Even more so if you're writing web backends. Then the code doesn't really differ that much from Go.

I've shipped a lot of Rust software without the understanding or even attempting to learn a lot of the language. There is plenty of things in core libraries around traits that I have no idea how they work or really care.

I am french, good C++ scores on senior tests, still out of a job

I lack a degree though

Same city as you, same language. There's work but not much if you don't want to enter the consulting meat grinder.

I am willing to enter the consulting meat grinder, if you have any tip

I get regularly contacted my them, but they don't hire me

I wish they would make a demonstration

I realized my inbox takes a lot of memory, even after a manual cleanup, it was still taking 5GB, despite regularly removing automated things and others.

I tried using takeout to have a more accurate listing. I thought I could open it with thunderbird, I failed, I then tried to open it with some python lib, also failed.

Memory or storage?

5GB of storage sounds not so bad.

after cleaning up? I don't think so

I don't know how large is a single mail without image or attachment, though

death stranding is in there

I remember that many games I had in my wishlist became "blank" or removed, and I was unable to know what games were those

It was superseded by the Director’s Cut edition. So you can buy DS but not the original launch edition

That’s actually a case with a lot of games on the list that got a remake, director’s cut, upgraded edition etc.

This site has a tag for games that get relisted, but it really needs one for games that got remastered as well. It's a bit misleading to say a game is gone when you can still buy the GOTY version.

Really, it would be nice if every listing had a 1 or 2 word tag that summarized the reason for the de-listing.

Publisher Closed

Servers Shut Down

Remastered

License Expired

TOS Violation

That sort of thing.

It's only misleading to say so if the edition that replaces it is not strictly worse in at least one axis: Botched remasters, full remakes, unrenewed licenses, ports from a worse version of the game instead of the original...

Now, if there's actually a better release of the same game, then sure it should be at least tagged clearly.

>I was unable to know what games were those

You can check by copying the url of the blank game and pasting it into SteamDB's search field.

does it make a mesh?

doesn't seem very accurate, no idea of the result with a photo of large scene, that could be useful for level designers

It doesn't but it's pretty trivial to do if all you want is a pinholed mesh.

I managed to one-shot it by mixing in the mesh exporter from https://github.com/Tencent-Hunyuan/HunyuanWorld-Mirror but at that point you might as well use HWM, which is slower but much better suited to the level design use case.

Note that the results might not be as good as you expect, because this does not do any angled inpainting -- any deviation from the camera origin and your mesh will be either full of holes or warped (depending on how you handle triangle rejection) unless you layer on other techniques far outside the scope of this model.

And note that although HWM itself does support things like multi-image merging (which ml-sharp does not), in my testing it makes so many mistakes as to be close to useless today.

If you want something different that is designed for levels, check out Marble by World Labs.

No

Gaussian splats

Bought a thinkpad L450 10 years ago for about 900 euros. No GPU, which probably increased its lifespan. Replaced its HDD with a SSD.

Apart from thinkpads and maybe framework, I don't think there is any other reliable laptop brand with reasonable prices.

I was talking with my mother about buying jeans pants that would last for a long time, and a 200 euros jeans would have holes on its 6th year or something. Everything is built to last "just long enough".

It's just insane that I can't find biscuits will less sugar.

Not aspartame or similar, just biscuits will half or one third of the sugar.

I have the same when I look at some beverages and sweets in the UK compared to some European countries.

Similar or even the same product, much more sugar added in the UK. To the point it's not edible (like supermarket cakes).

Most products would taste better if they had half or third of it.

But it's not about taste, it's about dependency.

"we give people heroin and they ask for more, it's the addicts' fault"

It's sugar, not a hard drug. Your agency isn't substantially subverted by the drive to consume it. Self control isn't easy, though; that's why it's a virtue.

Seriously, read some more.

> Repeated, excessive intake of sugar created a state in which an opioid antagonist caused behavioral and neurochemical signs of opioid withdrawal. The indices of anxiety and DA/ACh imbalance were qualitatively similar to withdrawal from morphine or nicotine, suggesting that the rats had become sugar-dependent.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12055324/

This one is even better but should be read in full: > The reviewed evidence supports the theory that, in some circumstances, intermittent access to sugar can lead to behavior and neurochemical changes that resemble the effects of a substance of abuse. According to the evidence in rats, intermittent access to sugar and chow is capable of producing a “dependency”. This was operationally defined by tests for bingeing, withdrawal, craving and cross-sensitization to amphetamine and alcohol

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2235907/

> "The indices of anxiety and DA/ACh imbalance were qualitatively similar to withdrawal from morphine or nicotine"

The key word being "qualitatively." Yes, something like a dependency can develop, but unless it's of roughly equal severity to hard drug dependencies, then the comparison is inappropriate. Hard drugs substantially affect one's agency, to a degree which sugar just doesn't.

Do you really think I believe sugar is as much addictive as heroin? Because I don't.

Sugar is addictive, so talking about "individual decision-making" of millions of people like you did, like they lack willpower, is not going to improve the situation regarding the obesity epidemic.

You should do a bit of research of what can be found in supermarkets in developed countries of the EU, and what sort of food norms they have.

Of course you can put any problem on the fault of free will if you really want.

LOL I didn't think it needed to be said! So I didn't include it in my reply to you. I am here replying to someone else, not to you.

I think, generally, it is due to a lack of will, yes. Of course, eliminating the bad options altogether -- I mean, restricting what products can appear in stores -- would be more effective than relying on the willpower of individuals. Although, that would require some serious market intervention...