Or rather a Dunning Kruger issue: seniors having spent a significant time architecturing and debugging complex applications tend to be big proponents for things like rust.
I agree with the sentiment and everything, but the whole gaming console industry has gone to crap after they started putting hard drives/storage in them with the goal of needing you to be online and not owning anything anymore. They are all equally despicable for that. Which makes emulation even more essential, just for preserving those games into the future when the online front will inexorably shut down.
I've been on the prusa slicer side of things for a long time, and you won't see me arguing in favor of cura. That said, you should probably consider doing daily backups of your home folder, using something like Borg/restic which have great incremental and compressed backups (practically backing up TBs in seconds).
The important figure isn't the total, but the fraction of GDP that goes into real estate, which is disproportionate in the case of China, for the reasons I mentioned, and more (another major one being the land leased by local governments to serve as their de facto revenue stream)
I have no idea what this is about, but was kotlin native considered here? And what ruled it out in favour of rust?
I've seen multiple JVM languages going the route of AOT/native compilation and now taking the spot of systems languages in some use cases (CLI utils, low footprint "cloud native" stacks, things requiring tight os-level integration) with often outstanding performance.
Not like "many other countries" but expectedly much worse: real estate has been de facto where most Chinese have been concentrating their wealth as "investment" in the absence of better local alternatives and the inability to invest abroad.
According to https://www.notebookcheck.net/ , a framework 13 with a Ryzen 7840U will run out of battery 22% faster than the macbook but will outperform the macbook by 85% on some benchmarks. I wouldn't pick the mac.
The problem I've observed with XMPP as an outsider is the lack of a standard. Each server or client has its own supported features and I'm not sure which one to choose.
That's a valid concern, but I wouldn't call it a problem. There are practically 2 types of clients/servers: the ones which are maintained, and which work absolutely fine and well together, and the rest, the unmaintained/abandoned part of the ecosystem.
And with the protocol being so stable and backwards/forwards compatible in large parts, those unmaintained clients will just work, just not with the latest and greatest features (XMPP has the machinery to let clients and servers advertise about their supported features so the experience is at least cohesive).
Which client would you recommend?
Depends on which platform you are on and the type of usage. You should be able to pick one as advertised on https://joinjabber.org , that should keep you away from the fringe/unmaintained stuff. Personally I use gajim and monocles.
What's the deal with you, exactly? Are you denying the many substantiated academic reports of environmental damage caused by rare-earth extraction and refining as part of some anti-China conspiracy? Just so I know if it's worthy of my time to engage at all.
care to elaborate? The rest of the world definitely has higher environmental standards (and, more importantly, enforcement of them) than China. And that is a significant driver of the cost. You should read about the history of the PV industry in Germany before throwing insults.
They both qualify as "open, federated messaging protocols", with XMPP being the oldest (about 25 years old) and an internet standard (IETF) but at this point we can consider Matrix to be quite old, too (10 years old). On the paper they are quite interchangeable, they both focus on bridging with established protocols, etc.
Where things differ, though, is that Matrix is practically a single vendor implementation: the same organization (Element/New Vector/ however it's called these days) develops both the reference client and the reference server. Which incidentally is super complex, not well documented (the code is the documentation), and practically not compatible with the other (semi-official) implementations. This is a red herring because it also happens that this organization was built on venture capital money with no financial stability in sight. XMPP is a much more diverse and accessible ecosystem: there are multiple independent teams and corporations implementing servers and clients, the protocol itself is very stable, versatile and extensible. This is how you can find XMPP today running the backbone of the modern internet, dispatching notifications to all Android devices, being the signaling system behind millions of IoT devices, providing messaging to billion of users (WhatsApp is, by the way, based on XMPP)
Another significant difference is that, despite 10 years of existence and millions invested into it, Matrix still has not reached stability (and probably never will): the organization recently announced Matrix 2 as the (yet another) definitive answer to the protocol's shortcomings, without changing anything to what makes the protocol so painful to work with, and the requirements (compute, memory, bandwidth) to run Matrix at even a small scale are still orders of magnitude higher than XMPP. This discouraged many organizations (even serious ones, like Mozilla, KDE, ...) from running Matrix themselves and further contributes to the de-facto centralization and single point of control federated protocols are meant to prevent.
That's seriously overlooking decades of Linux being optimized for embedded/mobile/cloud/desktop... computing and billions having been invested in engineering efforts by companies like Google, AMD, Nvidia, MediaTek, Intel, Facebook, Microsoft, Red Hat, ... for which every bit squeezed out of the hardware means millions in operating costs saved. Sure there are niches where Linux isn't the best fit for the job, but with such widespread usage and support, you are almost guaranteed to be reaching peak performance for whatever device it's running on, with the category of devices HarmonyOS is targeting being amongst the one having the most eyeballs.
I don't believe anything, I want numbers and hard evidence, and then you'll see me cheering.
It's part of the reason why I think decentralized services could be the future. Lemmy or Mastodon can have a lot of small servers with reasonable costs spread across many admins, instead of one centralized service that costs a significant amount to run.
Ohh, absolutely, or rather, it is the past. I mean, internet was built that way, as a resilient federation of networks and protocols. Lemmy could be seen as us just rediscovering emails after the tech giants almost succeeded in killing it. We should approach all the services we use by asking ourselves basic sustainability questions:
is that thing opensource?
self hostable?
does it federate/interoperate with equivalent services?
can I pull my data out of it/relocate to another provider on a whim?
if not, is this a trustworthy and ethical business?
is it profitable?
are there open financial records available showing where/for what the money is going?
u_tamtam @ u_tamtam @programming.dev Posts 6Comments 454Joined 2 yr. ago
Or rather a Dunning Kruger issue: seniors having spent a significant time architecturing and debugging complex applications tend to be big proponents for things like rust.