As a developer as well, I agree that they can get fucked. Bloated crap that wastes bandwidth and ruins first-time-to-paint on mobile devices by necessitating downloading and initializing a multi-megabyte bundle of npm packages.
As a user of the internet, I need websites to work, however. I would have disabled JavaScript entirely by now if it weren’t for the fact that doing so renders what feels like half of the entire web unusable.
Might be that there’s some way of blocking that behavior if you don’t like it, though, if I’m not seeing it.
Not without either breaking most SPAs (Single-Page Applications) or writing userscripts with site-specific logic.
The classic way of doing this crap was to make a placeholder page navigate to the article page. That leaves the redirect page in the history stack so when the user presses the back button, it just opens the page that navigates them forward again.
The modern way is to use the history API with history.pushState to add a history entry while listening for the popState event to check if the user pressed the back button. Unfortunately, both of those features have a legitimate use case for enabling navigation within a SPA. Writing an extension to replace them with no-ops would, in the best case, break page history in SPA websites. In the worst case, it would break page routing entirely.
You might be able to get away with conditionally no-oping their functionality based on heuristics such as “only allow pushState if the user interacted with the page in the last 5 seconds,” but it would still end up breaking some websites.
Add another to your list. It also started happening to me recently.
A horse can call itself a duck, but that doesn’t make it a duck; it’s still a horse.
Likewise, a country that calls itself communist while practicing capitalism under a hierarchical ruling party isn’t communist. Even if every member of the CCP had equal say in the country’s policies and direction, 8% of the total population is far from representing the working class, let alone being led by them.
They’re not communist, correct. They’re capitalist.
I’m surprised you didn’t stick with NixOS. After spending tens of hours learning how to use it, the sunk cost fallacy is strong.
Any distro works.
Any non-LTS distro works*
Using a distro release based on a 2 year old kernel with brand new hardware is asking for a horrible experience. For gaming especially, you’re also losing out on months/years of improvements to Mesa.
I was going to make a joke that they could also replace the taskbar search bar with an AI chat bar, but after reading the article, it turns out that they’re planning on doing that for real:
Windows 11 taskbar is now being “upgraded” with AI-first features. Microsoft is working on the Ask Copilot bar, which may replace Windows Search in the taskbar.
Oh, no. I’m saying Microsoft owning your operating system and using it to push their data-harvesting software as a default browser is a monopolistic practice, whereas using Chrome by itself is just reinforcing an existing monopoly. The same goes for Mac and Safari or Android and Chrome.
Neither option is good, but it’s a step in the right direction to punish a corporation for their active attempts to subvert competition in a bid to establish their own monopoly in place of the current one.
If you have to pick between two monopolistic corporations, using both of them but giving each a little less of your data and attention is a way to mitigate the risks and damage.
If Microsoft can harvest data on how I use my computer, I can at least make it a bit harder for them to harvest my browsing habits too by not voluntarily giving them browser telemetry on top of that.
There’s plenty:
The phoronix comment section is a garden of rationality and level-headed thinking in comparison.
Any time Rust is brought up in Phoronix, half of the comments are bad-faith idiots making strawmen and whataboutism arguments amounting to “skill issue, C is 300% safe and nobody needs better” and thinly-veiled contrarian antagonism against Rust because it’s popular.
A comment section worse than that? Impressive.
That was something they could actually market to the consumer as a necessary upgrade, though.
Going from HDMI 2.1 to DisplayPort 2.1a doesn’t offer anything other than higher bandwidth, and not even high-end PCs are capable of pushing resolutions at high enough framerates for that bandwidth to have been the limiting factor for games.
Because of that lack of perceptible benefit to them, the optics of replacing HDMI on consumer devices that are meant to be connected to TVs isn’t going to be good. Even if it’s an objectively better standard from a technical perspective, it will just come across to consumers as an unnecessary change meant to push their TVs towards planned obsolescence.
They’re going to complain about it, the media will pick up on the story and try to turn it into a scandal, and then legislators and regulators will step in and make decisions based on limited understanding of the technical reasons. By that point, one of the console manufacturers will have been pressured into backing down and promise to keep HDMI in their next-gen console, and the other ones will have followed suit because they don’t want to lose sales over it.
The only way console manufacturers are going to stay united in kicking HDMI to the curb is if the organization behind HDMI pulls a Unity move and starts charging royalties to the manufacturers for every time a consumer plugs the console into a TV.
As long as the manufacturers are competing against each other, that’s never going to happen.
The “gamer” consumer demographic has some of the most whiny, entitled vocal minorities. They’re going to endlessly complain about the next generation of console needing a special cable/dongle to connect to their TV, one of the manufacturers are going to fold, and then the other one is going to walk back the lack of HDMI because they don’t want to lose sales to their competitor.
And native software.
Because JavaScript runs everywhere, we have companies creating “apps” and PC “programs” that are little more than glorified web views. There’s normally nothing wrong with having shared code across implementations, but when that shared code is a 4 MB bundle of crap that creates 100s of MB in dictionaries and JIT compiler caches, you’re ruining the end-user experience.
They make entire SOCs. None of them are x86 because of the duopoly that Intel and AMD have thanks to their cross-licensing agreement, but they still have functional CPUs with a common ISA.
AMD: “Our partners will fry your expensive CPU on some boards.”
INTEL: “Our software will fry your expensive CPU on all boards.”
The only way that username would check out is either if it was owned by a pushy and holier-than-thou social progressive with zero self-awareness, a conservative with a small world view that feels “owning the libs” is a personality trait, or a troll.
Now, considering your account was created on this platform two days ago, just called the resident population of Lemmy stupid, and drink whatever kool-aid Musk is selling, it’s a toss-up between the last two.
Much like Musk himself, it seems.
He wants to allow AI slime on his own platform
Don’t forget the blatant scams called crypto games! He proudly announced Epic Games Store would happily sell games centered around NFTs and crypto after Valve said they wouldn’t allow it.
There’s a whole lot of entitlement going on in that thread.
If the maintainers didn’t want to merge it because they had bigger issues to worry about, that’s that. Whining about it and trying to pressure them with prospects of “becoming obsolete [if you don’t merge this]” isn’t going to make a convincing argument.
They should either shut the fuck up and learn to RTFM, or maybe consider putting their money where their mouths are by actually paying to support the projects they seem to so desperately think they have a right to influence the direction of.