seba_dos1

The device only signals that it's a power sink with its 5.1k resistors, there's only one way to put them there without implementing the full-blown PD protocol. It can't signal power levels (USB legacy / 7.5W / 15W) and doesn't need to, it's the power source that signals its capability.

You're probably confusing it with the spec requiring that the device does not attempt to consume more power than USB legacy from a source that doesn't advertise such capability - but even then there's no "negotiation" happening, it's just a matter of measuring the voltage on CC lines.

You haven't read a word of what I wrote, have you?

It preceded its release with the iPod craze, making it a lifestyle product rather than something marketed for its capabilities (which were very humble compared to other contemporary devices and only started to catch up in second gen).

N9's Harmattan still used a regular X11 environment on a Debian-based system, just like N900's Fremantle (though it was supposed to be a stop-gap as MeeGo proper wasn't Debian-based anymore). However, aside of Aegis being a PITA, its portrait form-factor with a capacitive touchscreen and lack of physical keyboard simply wasn't providing a comfortable experience with "standard GNU/Linux apps" that N900 did.

Hah, I had expected this knee-jerk response, but kinda hoped you'd avoid this pitfall. Alas.

See, I could tell you that in English, "second to" is a construct that usually means "next to" or "inferior to" and has nothing to do with "being in second place", and that if it did, it would make the popular construct "second only to" completely redundant. But others already did that in sibling comments before me, and you could just respond with "you're wrong" anyway, so what's the point? Pointing to an LLM is, of course, often a lazy and unhelpful cop out from the discussion, but in this particular case it's pointing you to a dataset that's explicitly about extracting meaning and finding relationships between phrases in languages - so you don't have to trust me or anyone else that this phrase is actually being used in this particular way, you can find it out yourself based on enormous training datasets illegally collected from all over the Internet.

You're both logically and grammatically wrong. You could even ask an LLM to explain the meaning of the phrase to you if you don't believe that.

Publishing various versions of the code in a version control system repository as separate directories living on the same branch is an interesting choice.

Opus - perhaps, but claiming that 128kbps Vorbis is transparent would be rather stretching it (unless it's a mono stream); though how easily it will be detectable depends on the kind of music used to test it. However, if you added, say, Bluetooth A2DP to the mix and made it go through a lossy encoder again the difference should be pretty obvious to anyone with good ears.

So I think it will have a negative impact on artists' incomes.

Creativity essentially becoming a hobby for already wealthy people isn't exactly "the end of creativity", but it isn't that far from it either.

Sure, but there's so much more going on in a human than "a thought process running on a powerful processor" that current models do not even begin to approximate. We're not some brains steering meatmechs they're trapped in, we're complex machines consisting of interconnected systems running continuous processes with feedback loops that brains are only a single part of (and LLM-like processes in our brains are also only one of many things that happen in a brain). So-called "agents" are nowhere close to having actual agency yet. Once that changes, I may become actually interested in their outputs and opinions in other contexts than technical curiosities, but I'm not convinced that I'll still be around when that happens (if it even happens before we manage to make ourselves extinct anyway).

Looks like this pavlovian reaction is quite widespread. It's baffling how can you so confidently miss the point.

Oh yes, that makes a lot of sense.

Of course. The "content" is how humans communicate with each other, it doesn't just exist for its own sake (except in some degenerate cases). If you know that a human has authored it, you can infer their intent and thought-process from various choices they made across it. There's no such thing as intentional choices when the content is generated though.

Because when it's done right it's not the compositor/display server that's the bottleneck.

Yeah, I believe Mutter is directly responsible for a lot of bad rep Wayland gets. It got better in many areas, but the damage is done.

What you're saying doesn't make any sense. Gamescope is essentially a XWayland-only compositor (with some basic xdg-shell support that's disabled by default). All games on SteamOS go through XWayland.

It doesn't yet mean that it suffers from the latency measured in the article, as the problem could very well be in something else, such as how KWin integrates with XWayland or how GPU drivers interact with it (especially that Nvidia drivers have a history of making XWayland suffer).

Tearing can theoretically improve latency for the part of the screen that's below the tear, but in any case where you could actually benefit from it the difference would be at least order of magnitude smaller than the duration of one frame.

Is this some kind of Pavlov's dog reaction? That's not what my comment was about, and even if it was it wouldn't make any sense anyway as KWin had good results in these measurements.

Even the simplest 3-wire cable with nothing but wires in it will handle 45W charging already, which is enough to power my laptop. It needs to be physically broken to not work. If it doesn't, it's usually the device's fault. There are many cheap devices out there that are just USB-C-shaped and don't actually implement the spec, working with some kinds of cables and not working with others.

Usually they won't charge because they're not actually USB-C devices but are just broken and only pretend to be one (mostly due to missing resistors on CC lines, but there are other ways a device can be non-compliant too).

Nor was Qt in its first versions, but how is this adding value to the conversation? Both of them were first-class in Maemo 5 and that's when the developers were clearly being attracted to the platform which is what I was talking about above. Harmattan was already DoA.

Nope, at least in Play Store it's because of how Google chooses to run their store. Google is the middleman between two sides of the transaction and its the developer that actually sells these apps, while Valve is one of the sides of the transaction and sells things based on the license granted by the developer. Not sure how Apple does it though.

There's no such thing as "Wayland input latency". It's just a word salad, akin to "HTTP animation smoothness". The post is measuring Xorg vs. KWin (and also XWayland), other implementations of either X11 or Wayland will have different characteristics.

I wonder where the XWayland's added latency comes from though, it seems suspiciously high to just be easily hand-waved as overhead.

Never claimed it was.

So you do just want to complain and simply choose to ignore what I mention about how Git UX makes sure the user has everything they need to avoid these pitfalls. OK, I'm afraid this is just wasting everyone's time. I'm not excusing anything, to the contrary, I'm showing a concrete example of a good UX and point out that there's been more and more stuff like this showing up in Git in the recent years, as it wasn't always like this. But I get it - complaining about Git is basically free karma, so why not just show up and state "I don't like it" or "it ruins everything with glee"?...

If the assumption was wrong, then your first comment was pretty much useless, and the second one didn't help either as it just describes doing things carelessly and without proper understanding. So if that reading of it is wrong, then it was just complaining for complaining's sake and not about Git at all, but rather about what you happen to find scary for some undisclosed reason?

People do have genuine troubles with these behaviors when they don't grasp what's going on well enough. These troubles go away pretty much entirely once they do. I think explaining them is the only thing one could write in such thread that will be useful to anyone, as the Git's UX already does make a pretty good effort to help the user orient themselves in these cases and has been visibly improving in this regard over time.

Also, files don't have to be text-based at all to version them with Git. When you're versioning things for your own sake, there's often not much difference between keeping text and binary files there, as it's not like you'll have to resolve an unexpected conflict.

Had you actually read what I wrote, you would rather summarize it as "Git is showing exactly what's going to happen when you attempt to do it, all you have to do to make is pleasant is to not ignore it". Reading things requires unpleasant effort though, I get it.

Check out "man git-bisect".

It won't result in the third graph on its own as E isn't reachable from D, but it could if you first merged D and E together and then used --update-refs with --rebase-merges. You could then just discard the merged branch and only take care of D' and E' on their own (and since you don't care about the merged branch, you don't have to care about resolving conflicts while preparing it either).