To add some more context:

Eglot is part of Emacs now, so it comes preinstalled. It’s good at finding lsp servers, but won’t help you to install them. Definitely the option if you want to keep things simple and can live with the need to manually install servers. (Also a quick note, the hook you should use to auto activate eglot is eglot-ensure, rather than just eglot.

I can’t imagine that’s any more free than bitwarden?

The big downside is that, for backwards compatibility, the default must still be unsafe code. Ideally this could be toggled with a compiler flag, rather than having to wrap most code in “safe” blocks (like rust, but backwards).

One potential upside that people don’t seem to be discussing is that the safe subset could also be the place to finally start cutting down the bloat of C++. We could encourage most developers to write exclusively in the safe subset, and aim to make that the “much smaller and cleaner language” trying to get out of C++.

This is for trains… My guess is that it’s for 20-30 year olds that commute by rail

Obviously there’s a lot of caveats about how representative this survey (or any other survey) is of the broader population, but I think this is a good reminder of how weird we all are. Nobody on here claims to use Ubuntu or Manjaro, yet they are more popular than Fedora (and potentially even arch, when steam decks are discounted).

There’s nothing wrong with that, I love the weirdness of the Lemmy Linux community! I just always think it’s good to appreciate when opinions (like my love of ublue) aren’t as popular as you think they are.

Please somebody correct me if I’m wrong, but I really don’t find the “chip makers don’t have to pay licence fees” a compelling argument that RISC-V is good for the consumer. Theres only a few foundries capable of making CPUs, and the desktop market seems incredibly hard to break into.

I imagine it’s likely that the cost of ISA licencing isn’t what’s holding back competition in the CPU space, but rather its a good old fashioned duopoly combined with a generally high cost of entry.

Of course, more options is better IMO, and the Linux community’s focus on FOSS should make hopping architectures much easier than on Windows or MacOS. But I’d be surprised if we see a laptop/desktop CPU based on RISC-V competing with current options anytime soon.

Its all about how an application goes from “I would like to display X on a screen” to how X actually gets displayed. Wayland is effectively a language (technically a protocol) that graphical applications can speak to describe how they would like to be drawn. It’s then up to a different program more deeply embedded in your OS to listen to and act on those instructions (this program is called a Wayland compositor). There’s a lot more to it (handling keyboard input monitor settings, etc), but that’s the general idea.

Wayland is a (relatively) new way of thinking about this process, that tries to take into account the wide variety of input and output devices that exist today, and also tries to mitigate some of the security risks that were inherent to previous approaches (before Wayland, it was very easy for one application to “look at” what was being displayed in a completely different app, or even to listen to what keys were being typed even when the app isn’t focussed).

Thing is, change is hard, doubly so in the consensus driven world of Linux/FOSS. So, until the last couple of years or so, adoption of Wayland was quite slow. Now we’re at the point where most things work at least as well in Wayland, but there’s still odd bits of software that either haven’t been ported, or that still rely on some features that don’t exist in Wayland, often because of the aforementioned security risks.

Machine learning is just gradient descent through a subset of algorithm-space