I disagree.. The problem actually is that Wayland is optional, and still is.

So everyone was dragging their heels (and some still are). If all the major distro's set a cut off date, then things would speed up. The biggest reason for delay was Nvidia imho, so now that they're sorted, it seems things are falling into place faster.

X11 still hasn't solved any of their real issues, and its still a security nightmare (which can't be fixed). Furthermore, most of the developers have moved off it.

What exactly do you like about X11?

I actually disagree. I feel it's best to use for languages you're good with, because it tends to introduce very subtle bugs which can be very difficult to debug, and code which looks accurate about isn't. If you're not totally familiar with the language, it can be even harder

My workmate literally used copilot to fix a mistake in our websocket implementation today.

It made one line of change.. turned it it made the problem worse

Wasn't that at the same time works was out?

I remember when they got rid of the old WRX design. I thought the new ones looked stupid.

But they were right. Now when you look at the old ones they look cringe

Even cars like the Nissan cube and the CJ cruiser honestly my opinions have totally changed

Yeah. I actually wanted to buy one too. It's a pity they don't make steam machines either anymore

Sorry, what's malus?

Yep, maybe if you abuse me, it will add credibility..

Your post specifically was correlating the two. But, seems more like since you don't have any real justification for your response, you're resorting to calling me a "STAN" or whatever. If you want to do that, I prefer you stick to Reddit, where that behavior is commonplace.

Google have done very little to block other app stores or other ad providers on their platforms.. That's why they're likely far behind. Apple on the other hand have a long history of blocking apps, or delaying them, and blocking App stores.

The proof is, most popular Android products aren't even made by Apple (Samsung). And a lot of android products don't even ship the Play store.

Complaints for IOS and Android developers are remarkably different. Many Android developers are complaining there are too many variants of devices, whereas many Apple developers (particularly bigger ones) complain about Apple business practices.

Getting locked out of the App Store, means your product is dead. Even worse, Apple used to ban entire products from their app store, explicitly if it replicates some of their functionality too (or even not even tell the developer why). If that's not anti-competitive, I don't know what is.

That's true.. Apparently 90% of their profit is ads

But they don't block other ad providers in the google play store, and they don't block other hardware using Android to show their own ads. In fact Apple could technically adopt android and put their own app store on it. You can't do that on IOS.

In fact, Google is getting penalised simply because their search engine is dominating the market (but they're not doing anything to prevent other companies in Chrome for instance for putting their own search engines and such). Whereas Apple is getting penalised for hostile behavior.

They actually are.

1. Android allows people to bypass their store as an example, and their APIs are a lot more permissive. It's also a mostly open OS (except some parts)
2. It doesn't matter what you think about Google, remember, Apple gets paid millions / billions to make them the default search engine. So they're at least as bad
3. Remember Pebble? Apple abused their app store to kill them off
4. Apple doesn't treat their resellers particularly well.
5. Microsoft bailed them out, and then they repaid them, but sh**talking them.
6. They don't treat developers particularly well either. Apple actively uses their monopoly to compete against other developers, and even screws subscription services
7. Apple deceived customers to win business. I used to sell them, and their Mac Vs PC ads accomplished what they'd hoped. Every new customer walked in and thought Mac's can't get viruses and won't crash. Here in Australia, they should have been sued
8. You can even develop Android and Chrome apps without any Google hardware. Apple however, that's not an option.
9. Apple even forced developers to use their Apple ID thing.
10. Apple doesn't sell your details. However, it's almost impossible to use their hardware without providing them, and they even forced their resellers to meet targets whilst actively competing against them (using the harvested details)

They're literally NOTHING alike. Apple literally treats everyone like crap, but sugar coats it. The only real bad thing you could say about Google is privacy related honestly (and the fact they keep killing their own projects).

In fact, name any type of Apple user who they treat well?

I use a Mac Studio, and I'd love to work at Apple simply to help improve things on the inside. The crazy thing is that the problem isn't the Apple developers, but select people in their team

Not a single person is surprised.

The reality is that Apple has been anti consumer and anti developer for 20 years. I was selling apple gear, and can practically pinpoint the moment they started screwing everyone

Probably same reason as here in Australia.

The gas companies have managed to create a multifaceted cult where they've brainwashed people into thinking electricity is unclean (despite things like heat pumps being 500% efficient), unreliable and expensive.

Also, it helps that people who paid too much for their ICE cars are scared and they know that their cars will increasingly drop in value as people transition away from gas and fossil fuels.

I hope you need a 500mb driver to use it too with an installer that pops up every reboot, even if you press cancel.

Otherwise, it's clear that it fails at being a mouse

And nobody noticed...

Maybe calling a hero cave diver a pedo wasn't a great idea, Elon

Yes he is, and I read 2 sentences of this article, skipped to the end, and it reads like word salad or something written by someone who is drunk. Or they got copilot to rewrite the article.

I generally stay out of these Ukraine discussions, but Russia is clearly the aggressor.

Unless you can justify what valid reason Russia had to attack Ukraine or what you mean by diplomacy, then it's a non argument.

Russia clearly isn't interested in discussions unless they involve surrendering..

Nah.. He's offering it because he probably plans to leave politics (since he's getting nowhere fast), and needs a cushy job. Guess who will be working at the firm involved with the nuclear reactors?

So you propose building a reactor that doesn't have anything actually working beyond demonstration reactors yet?

It still has many of the same issues coal and gas has:

1. Its still centralised. The power companies can still rip us off.
2. Solar is already cheap and already only takes 4 years to pay off. The Government would have to subsidise the power during the construction period to prevent people moving to solar. And, Solar is effectively free after it has been installed
3. It STILL needs instantly dispatchable power. You can't just turn on a generator. You need to spin it up to the correct speed, and it needs to be in the same phase. If its out of phase, the generator jumps forward or backwards and damages itself.. Safety circuits will kick in. Loy Yang's kicked in during the storms. Nuclear will likely have the same issue.
4. It doesn't solve the unreliable power in Rural areas. Whereas, solar, wind and batteries can because they can effectively treat it more like a "microgrid", with less central points of failure.. ie, instead of centralising the batteries, scatter them in various areas.
5. Whilst there is reduced radiation, and its cleaner than Coal, you STILL have radioctive byproducts that will last ages. Ultimately, it doesn't matter how well they're stored, there is always a risk they'll end up in the water table and not secure and it will be expected that a future generation will likely need to use excess energy to convert the radioactive materials to non-radioactive (somehow)

The only real problem it solves is that its more reliable than solar, and cleaner than coal. But.. In two and a half years, solar panel efficiency also increased by 5%. So, in 10 years, that could be a 20% efficiency increase too.. And in 6 years, the cost halved.

In the unlikely case the thorium plant does need to be shut down (natural disaster as an example, similar to Fukashima), we're basically screwed. Microgrid's wouldn't have this trouble.. Also, it basically requires that we just do nothing about the pollution for 10-20 years whilst they're building it, or the extra power requirements we'll need to transition to non-fossil fuel cars.

In 3 years, solar panel cost has mostly dropped in half (you can buy a 10kw system for the same as 6.6 a few years ago). Battery cost dropped 25% over the past year.

Nuclear can't dispatch any power (incrementally or otherwise), until its fully built. Nuclear is also expensive power, and it can't be dispatched as quickly or cheaply as solar/batteries (so the nuclear power station will remain offline). Don't forget that generators need to sync to the grid fully, and can even lose sync and take hours to come back online (which happened to Loy Yang recently, and there were huge blackouts in victoria). When more despatchable power is needed, batteries will win EVERY time (because its cheap and instant).

Its reasonable to think that even 40kwh batteries will be cheaper and safer than even 10kwh batteries too and much higher efficiency solar panels (and possibly solar windows), so people will get off the grid and can have days of solar eclipse too.

Battery capacity is limited by cost still.. It won't be in the future (don't forget, residential is about $ per kwh, NOT density)

One thing that is also misunderstood, is that panels still also produce power when its cloudy too.. Solar panel efficiency in 10 years will increase rapidly, and this will only improve..

Nuclear is like an average olympic athlete who isn't allowed to start a race for 10 years. Sure it looks competitive now, but there are so many other athletes around, that by the time Nuclear gets to the starting line, the other athletes will be finishing.

Thing is, Renewables are already cheap. By the time Nuclear is built, batteries and solar will be hugely cheaper than the price they are now (and in 10 years, its reasonable to expect more than half the price again).

The same thing that happened to NBN will happen to nuclear (basic Game theory). With NBN, competitors undercut the NBN with 5G, because FTTC and FTTN was so bad, and it wasted everyone's money.

In this case, if they start building, everyone knows that power costs will be expensive, so renewable energy companies will target the prices, and encourage people to install solar and batteries anyway.. If batteries are 1/5 of the price they are now, everyone will simply install 5x more batteries, more panels (because they'll also be more efficient and cheaper than they are now, and work during worse conditions) and remove themselves from the grid. From a game theory point of view, Solar/batteries have a 10-15 year head start and are already cheaper. At the moment 12kwh seems to be the common capacity for batteries.. However, if batteries drop a lot, 30-40kwh might be the normal. And it's likely by the time Nuclear can be built that Lithium will no longer even be the norm for batteries (or if it is, they'll probably be solid state and low risk). Sodium batteries were already introduced last year and are 25% cheaper instantly. Battery density doesn't matter for houses (only cars), which really opens up options (all that matters is upfront cost and $ per kwh)

I bought my 6.6kw panels maybe 3 years ago, and 10kw is apparently already cheaper. If I wait 5 years, 15-20kw will probably be cheap (and I have more than enough roof space, so the only thing limiting me would be weather the power company allows it)

I have no idea why anyone would want a centralised grid. Last major power outage here in Victoria during storms was triggered because Loy Yang coal fell offline, and non-solid state power generation takes ages to come back online (it needs to sync up to the grid). Solar and batteries sync up immediately, so if its available, they will always beat Nuclear, and nuclear will simply be sitting there burning rods increasing our taxes and power prices (because nobody wants to use it, and its ultimately taxpayer money).. Similar to what happened with NBN (they ended up having to replace a lot of the copper anyway, and now yet again, they've had to upgrade to fibre)

If nuclear could come online tomorrow, it would make sense simply to get rid of coal. However Nuclear is basically playing a game where the competition has a 10 lead, and any innovation can be introduced to the market instantly. With Nuclear, whatever we start building now, we're stuck with. You can't simply just start incrementally updating parts