It's such an underrated advantage of open source operating systems that if you like some bit of software, you'll likely be able to use it for decades to come. Even a core bit of software like a window manager. I grew to hate how you need to conform to someone's whim at Apple or Microsoft, or else you get locked out of new features.

Well, unless you decided to use GNOME, then you get rugpulled by a bunch of people that think they know better than user what user wants and actively ignore any feedback

You can always fork it if you don’t like the choices they make

That’s the point the OP is trying to make about the advantage of open source

That's happened like three times to the extent that the forks are more widely installed than the original

And people did but it is hard against Redhat that has actively made harder and harder to use Gtk+ outside GNOME.

What changes have been implemented in GTK that make it harder to use outside of a GNOME environment?

practically everything in GTK 4. It removed menu bars ffs

As far as I can tell, every major version of GTK should be thought of as an entirely separate project, and nothing in GTK 4 made GTK 3 or GTK 2 harder to use.

Please link me to the python3 gtk2 library so that I can migrate all my python2 gtk2 software to python3 without rewriting the entire UI. Thanks in advance!

There are forks though. The only version i don't think that has a fork is GNOME 1 but... the code is out there (and there is an actively maintained GTK1-based toolkit that was posted here not too long ago, though you may need to make some modifications to the GNOME 1 code to work with it as IIRC it isn't backwards compatible).

People made CDE to work on modern systems and IIRC CDE wasn't even compatible with Linux when the code was first released.

But you can also use MATE still to this day, or even Cinnamon.

Hey! Someone sneaked into my brain and wrote down my exact comment!

It strikes me as odd that we've got so many agent harnesses, orchestrators, sandboxes, yet no one made a communicator for AIs yet.

Having large amounts of people with unfulfilled needs is not exactly a novel idea.

Teaching the user how to solve problems instead of solving them outright.

They do control the content on the notification. It's a bit odd to put the sensitive text in the notification only to recommend disabling it at the system level.

No. They recommended disabling it at the app level. Only the Signal app can control whether the message contents are included in the notifications.

They do not. They send encrypted notifications. It’s the OS that stores them unencrypted. It’s the OS at fault here IMHO.

Signal does NOT send encrypted notification, they send a blank notification that act like a ping, the actual encrypted data is then fetched by the app itself.

i think they're replying to the "recommendation" part -- if it was recommended, why isn't it the safe default?

i haven't actually seen signal or anyone adjacent recommend that previously though, idk where that claim came from

Sorry, the “recommended” was a bad wording on my part. The recommendation comes from the 404 Media article who did the expose on this incident, not Signal itself.

I’ve checked the Signal documentation page, and there’s no mention of the privacy implications of the setting: https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360043273491-In...

There are also drop-in replacements for the unlit screens of genuine units.

Notably, up until now Pro had 6x usage of Plus. So the title is only slightly misleading.

On the other hand, the benchmark of Plus usage seems to be to be all over the place, so it’s difficult to say now how does the usage compare to the old Pro.

Aren’t there some markers in the context that delimit sections? In such case the harness should prevent the model from creating a user block.

This is the "prompts all the way down" problem which is endemic to all LLM interactions. We can harness to the moon, but at that moment of handover to the model, all context besides the tokens themselves is lost.

The magic is in deciding when and what to pass to the model. A lot of the time it works, but when it doesn't, this is why.

You misunderstood. The model doesn't create a user block here. The UI correctly shows what was user message and what was model response.

People want to build something with the newfound productivity, but it turns out that software development always had a high leverage against potential impact - coding was always relatively cheap. That means there is in fact no backlog of great products that could have been built if we only had 10x productivity. The only spots where "missing products" can be found are mostly around AI itself.

I'll take a counterpoint, coding has historically not been cheap. Software engineers have been one of the highest paid professions for a long time. Personally while working a full time job, raising a family and trying to have some semblance of a social life my open source contributions fell off a cliff until recently with the popularization of coding agents. I've created more projects and software in the last 12 months than the past 10 years combined. Not to say a lot of it wasn't total slop or provided little utility, but it's been a fun and exciting time.

Another interesting point is that until recently most average people thought "code" was out of reach or they didn't have time / energy to learn it. My mother made a webapp with the help of claude code the other day to generate books, which she thought of and completed in the course of 3 days all the while learning about terminals, localhost, ports, APIs and more.

Better segregation of cyclists and pedestrians into their own spaces. The bell shouldn't be something that you use regularly.

Depending on how much traffic there is, combining them is fine.

Yes, but I would consider it somewhat rude to use the bell in a space where both bikes and pedestrians are allowed. If it would be required to be used regularly, I'd say the path is badly designed.

I used to commute to work by bike in ~1M city in Europe, mostly on dedicated bike lanes, but some shared, and had just the smallest, barely audible bell, only because it was required by law. I don't remember using it much at all. I don't know what the problem is. Maybe the Londoners should take a good look at themselves.

Different folks have different preferences.

I agree that on a footpath pedestrians should be treated as having priority.

A semi-common way I use my bell: when on a shared footpath with plenty of space to take over, I often use my bell when I'm still ten meters away, so that I don't give pedestrians are heart attack by suddenly dashing right past them.

(I have a nice ding dong bell. They don't seem to mind. It also helps that I often have a cheerful five year old in the back.)

But some bikers probably also use anc headphones, no?

Seen cyclists with overear anc headphones cycling on the road in london. Absolutely mad.

I do that. This was never a problem, as the ANC ones I used don't cancel every sound the same way.

For example, I can go into datacenter and it will cancel all the datacenter noise(aside for when air blows directly into mic, it overdrives it) but I can still hear what other person is saying.

Also I used them to generally listen to podcast so there was no wall of music to go thru, so sirens and such were easily discernable

>I do that. This was never a problem

The most problematic people in traffic are never aware that they are the problem.

You do you but as a cyclist you are super vulnerable to all manner of things and I'd never want to give up that kind of awareness.

If you listen carefully you can usually hear a cyclist behind you who may want to pass or is passing you, and having headphones probably makes that a lot harder

Do you also think drivers with windows blocking sounds and their stereo blasting are mad?

ofc they are