rwz

I've never been interested in VR headsets and am not very educated about it.

Can someone explain why you'd want to actually run things on it instead of having a much lighter screens-and-headphones-only unit that plugs it into a more powerful machine that renders things for it? What's the benefit of having to strap all this extra hot hardware and batteries to your face.

Is it just about it being wireless? Surely there are wireless protocols that can stream high-bandwidth videostreams from your PC to VR goggles.

Not trying to be snarky or facetious, but genuinely curious.

I've just installed macOS 27 on my personal laptop and I'm losing my mind. My OrbStack app is now permanently stuck in Dock showing as "Running in Background"

There appears to be no way to keep it from the Dock without actually killing it or disallowing the "Running in Background" permission for it.

This is the stupidest forced opt-in feature I've ever seen.

I recently got their new gen Pebble Time 2 and this thing lasts about a month on a single charge!

I've owned multiple generations of Apple watches before and the battery life made me ditch it. After about a year, the watch wouldn't even last a full day with mostly passive usage.

I'm considering trying Ultra just so the battery can comfortably last full day without entering power saving mode by 8pm.

Disappointing to see Apple doesn't consider battery life to be a major problem. They keep balancing efficiency and battery gains with new features consuming more juice to keep battery life roughly the same as the previous generations.

Sooo, Rivian is a chip maker now. That's cool, I guess.

> So your claim is that it's actually impossible to implement "efficient" anticheat on Linux? That's interesting.

This is absolutely not my claim and it's a pretty absurd interpretation of what I wrote.

My claim is that there's ample evidence that anti-cheat on Linux happens to be a pretty hard technical blocker and multiple companies at this point have chosen to ban the platform outright and take a revenue loss over trying to overcome this blocker. This directly contradicts your claim of "obviously few or no hard technical blockers" existing.

This does not imply it's impossible to implement. It implies that at this point implementing it would not justify the cost. This pretty much 100% matches the any reasonable interpretation of the term "technical blocker"

I don't play For Honour, but I'm monitoring Apex Legends pro scene and I know that Respawn has banned Linux because none of the existing anti-cheat solutions were good enough and the cost of maintaining their own solution was not worth the revenue Linux support was bringing.

Before the ban the cheater population was disproportionally high on Linux.

> There are obviously few or no hard technical blockers preventing Valve and the Linux community from supporting any game that runs on Windows

The announcement is a proof that your statement here is incorrect. Ubisoft is not banning Linux because they hate you and your money, but because there's a hard technical blocker to implementing an efficient anti-cheat system on Linux and the cost of overcoming this technical blocker is presumed to be higher than the loss of revenue they're incurring from losing your business.

What a brave, original take.

Which one did it not prove wrong? The fully AI written version of Bun has released, fixed a ton of bugs that existed in the zig version, added a lot of new features and performance improvements and has been shipping with every single installation of claude code for months, the most widely used LLM-harness out there.

By every single measurable metric this is better software than the old hand-written version ever was.

I fully AI-driven rewrite of a massive codebase from one language to another within a reasonable release-cycle has never been done before.

There was a lot of sentiment around the lines of:

- Bun is done for, it's all slop now

- there's no way a fully AI-written codebase can work

- Jarred is an idiot for trusting AI to rewrite the whole thing

- they're never going to release this, there's going to be a billion of bugs

This release proved all of this wrong. It also serves as a great advertisement of how capable Anthropic models and harness are to enable this.

Engineers are typically not the best performers/entertainers.

The rewrite part of get to functionally equivalent to the existing zig version in rust did in fact take 11 days based on the available data. When that was done, they spend some time on a ton of new features and hardening and bugfixing that the Rust rewrite enabled. This took additional time.

What are you talking about? What is the budget? Was there ever a deadline? Who ever decided those?

> working on but still do it anyway with no controls?

They are constantly talking about how dangerous it is and how it needs some controls. This is not an easy problem to solve however and controls don't magically appear just because you want them.

The option of just not working on it is also off the table.

A lot of super smart people working full time on this problem still haven't figured it out. What do you want the CEOs to realistically do here?

> The same people that drool over the possibility that they could rule the world via AI and robots?

This is just your personal conjecture. I see no real evidence of this.

This is a huge win for Bun & Anthropic. I've been keeping an eye on Bun development cycle since they announced the Rust rewrite and the huge drama and backlash it generated. They seem to be proving the skeptics wrong with this release.

I genuinely find it strange. Like, I can understand intellectually why those people might dislike AI CEOs, but I personally disagree and find most of the reasons to hate them pretty dumb.

Those are some pretty smart people working on the bleeding edge of miracle world-changing technology. Despite being pretty smart, they're also confused and disoriented by the thing they're creating but have no choice but to push forward. They're pretty open and candid about their worries too. Unlike most people, I personally see them as trailblazers and pioneers, not as loathsome parasites.

We might be living in different worlds, but for me Uber is infinitely better than taxis. I can get it anywhere, within minutes and it's clean and nice. I see where they are and I know exactly how much I'm going to pay to get to my destination. I don't even know how or where to hail a taxi these days, but all the taxis I got into at the train stations and in some airports were a huge downgrade from Uber — dirtier, older/shittier cars, inaccessible front seat.

Also, Uber Eats delivers food that used to be pretty much non-deliverable. There's no comparison, it's a pure net-additive capability. You just couldn't get a lot of foods without physically going there and now you can.

God, this is awful. I bet Claude Code can one shot an "UN-AI YOUR INTERNET" website 10 times better than this.

Yeah, Vivaldi specifically is keeping MV2 alive for uBO it seems. We'll see how long they can maintain it with their small team.

I mean sure, but there's a bit of a difference between "sells data to no one really knows who" and "sells data to no one really knows who AND PALANTIR" which the original commenter seem to be flagging as a problem.

The original uBO relies on Manifest V2, the API Chrome no longer supports. It's impossible to run full UBO (not Lite MV3 version) on current versions on Chrome.

I wouldn't be sure this is a long term solution. Maintaining a this into perpetuity would probably take a lot of resources that Vivaldi team might not have.

It's quite likely that Brave itself collects data on your usage and shares at least some of it with Palantir.

This isn't such an outrageous assumption to make here.

I daily Zen (Firefox under the hood) and the only thing that I consistently need to open other browsers for is direct USB support (mouse/keyboard drivers in the browser). Other than that, I don't remember when was the last time something wasn't working in Firefox.

Refusing to opine is a legitimate response.

I don't see how Bun is "ruined". In fact, I personally see Bun as example of the opposite — Rust rewrite seems like a huge success across the board.

I'm personally using the 1.4 canary (the rust rewrite version) and definitely plan on continuing using it in my future projects.

Have there ever been a comprehensive account from a GitHub insider on why their reliability tanked so hard since the MSFT acquisition?

I'm genuinely curious what changed, what their processes are and how they internally think about their reputation being in the gutter with all these incidents.

If you ignore the policy question of do cops even need access to the kind of capabilities Flock tech provides, this particular case becomes a pretty clear example of user error amplified by the capabilities of the tech and not the issue with the tech itself.

The cops didn't realize that the license plate they were searching was a) incomplete and therefore fuzzily matched multiple unrelated vehicles, and b) wasn't even stolen to begin with.

This is similar to running `rm -r *` in a wrong folder and then shifting blame on rm for deleting the stuff you didn't want deleted. Sure, there's maybe a conversation here about overall rm ergonomics and if the average user is even competent enough to be allowed to run it, but the it's first and foremost a user error.

The entire economy collapsing would likely heavily affect you even if you have no financial stake in AI-related companies similarly to how subprime mortgage crisis in the 2000s affected even people without mortgages.