> I have very strong, probably controversial, feeling on arstechnica, but I believe the acquisition from Condé Nast has been a tragedy.

For the curious, this acquisition was 18 years ago.

I read ars technica during undergrad over 20 years ago now. It complemented my learning in cpu architecture quite well. While in class we learned old stuff, they covered the modern Intel things. And also, who could forget the fantastically detailed and expert macOS reviews. I’ve never seen any reviews of any kind like that since.

I dropped ars from my rss sometime around covid when they basically dropped their journalism levels to reddit quality. Same hive mind and covering lots of non technical (political) topics. No longer representing its namesake!

What blogs do you subscribe to for tech stuff in your RSS feed? I still have Ars but I have to weed through a lot of stuff like the political articles. Really like just pure tech like how it used to be with the old Anandtech.

If you find a nice pure tech feed I would jump for joy. Too many places have been overtaken with nonsense.

I do find a few smaller special interest open source ones like the dolphin emulator blog which still maintains high standards. I too am stuck with finding new high quality new sources for more professional purposes. Things have changed a lot. Open source is now just corporate shareware and most that is written is marketing.

I subscribe to some news site for hackers... "Hacker News" I think it's called. Not RSS, but I've never used that anyway. Google should be able to find it for you.

Oddly enough it's not the first time I've seen their perceived recent drop in quality blamed on this. Just weird that it's happened twice - wonder where this narrative is coming from.

No, their quality has been dropping since the acquisition; it's just now gotten to the point where it cannot be explained away.

It's not just gotten to the point it can't be explained away. The best technical articles on the site have been the bio-horror shock material they pump out every month, and it's been that way for years.

When they started doing car reviews where "GM didn't pay for this car review, they just paid for a car review." everyone should've clued in.

God, I didn't need to know that

How do I report online harassment? There's probably a button but I can't find it because I misplaced my reading glasses.

Isn't arstechnica that new site that replaced slashdot?

I checked and was also expecting something different based on parent's comment.

Happened 18 years ago.

This is a hot take that has become room temp.

Boeing merged with McDonnell Douglas almost 30 years ago, but that's still a major reason they suck today.

Bad comparison.

I don't think many would say Ars Technica fell off dramatically circa 2010.

Buying a news property is also not comparable to a merger of near equals.

The transformation has been very slow I believe. They didn't really intrude too much the first few years. But maybe I remember wrong.

Bazzite or Cachy

Mint won't even boot for me because it doesn't support my year old GPU (9070 XT). That's a huge miss when someone is looking at an OS primarily for gaming.

I’ll look into Cachy. Bazzite I’m not going to touch because it seems politically toxic.

This is an account for the child once they turn 18. This is not money for the parents.

It appears that it's limited even after 18.

    After the growth period (that is, starting January 1st of the calendar year in which the child turns 18), most of the rules that apply to traditional IRAs will generally apply to the Trump account. For example, this means that distributions from the Trump account could be subject to the section 72(t) 10% additional tax on early distributions, unless an exception applies with respect to the child (such as for distributions for higher education expenses or first home purchases).

https://www.irs.gov/instructions/i4547

Does that mean that anyone who contributes their own money to their child’s Trump account is contributing post-tax dollars but the money gets taxed again when distributed (presumably less the basis of the contribution, which will be negligible by the time the money is distributed)?

Is it really that much better than alternatives to justify these constant outages?

We're starting to have that convo in our org. This is just getting worse and worse for Github.

Hosting .git is not that complicated of a problem in isolation.

No, but it has momentum left over from when it was much better. The Microsoft downslide will continue untill there's no one left

Not any longer. It used to but the outages have become very common. I am thinking about moving all my personal stuff to Codeberg.

Yes, for personal projects I just self-host an instance of forgejo with dokploy. Everything else I deploy on codeberg, which is also an instance of forgejo.

self-host your own services. There are a lot of alternatives to GitHub.

Im using Bitbucket for years with no issues.

The great advantage of Bitbucket is that it's so painfully slow you can't tell if it's down or not.

It always has been to just self host. Predicted GitHub's outage streak as far back as half a decade ago [0].

"A better way is to self host". [0]

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22867803

You can self-host GitHub enterprise.

Ooh - got a source?

I love its UI (apart from its slowness, of course). I find it much cleaner than Gitlab's.

Enterprises get Teams for free with O365, or use Slack if they really care about the experience.

Most individuals don't care and use iMessage/WhatsApp. Those that do use Signal since it's dramatically easier.

Teams has not been free with O365 for years now.

I use Teams all the time (although not because it is what I'd choose..).

Mostly just completely free tier, although I do have O365.

On the free tier I think the main restriction is the 60 minute limit on groups > 2?

Don't get me wrong, MS are almost as bad as Google in segregating their chat/video call/conferencing offerings, and even if you did know the names last week, they've probably changed them this week.

No I mean they were recently forced to unbundle by the EU or face monopoly claims. I guess they saw people paid anyway and unbundled everywhere else.

Yeah, I see.

TBH, I suspect it will only be good for MS to unbundle it.

Of course, I wish they'd unbundle the whole suite. I am never ever going to run the Outlook, Access + whatever that I am forced to install to get Excel and Word.

How big is that system? Without incentives mine was half that for 8kw.

Aren't they still using safety drivers or safety follow cars and in fewer cities? Seems Tesla is pretty far behind.

I don't know if Tesla claiming they're doing something carries weight anymore.

> IMO the presence of safety chase vehicles is just a sensible "as low as reasonably achievable" measure during the early rollout. I'm not sure that can (fairly) be used as a point against them.

Only if you're comparing them to another company, which you seem to be. So yes, yes it can.

Seriously, the amount of sheer cope here is insane. Waymo is doing the thing. Tesla is not. If Tesla were capable of doing it, they would be. But they're not.

It really is as simple as that and no amount of random facts you may bring up will change the reality. Waymo is doing the thing.

>Waymo is doing the thing.

This worldview is overly simplistic.

Waymo has (very shrewdly, for prospective investors at least) executed a strategy that most quickly scales to 0.1% of the population. Unfortunately it doesn't scale further. The cars are too costly and the mapping is too costly. There is no workable plan for significant scale from Waymo.

Tesla is executing the strategy that most quickly scales to 100% of the population.

> most quickly scales to 0.1% of the population. Unfortunately it doesn't scale further

Data suggests that they’re already available to ~2% of the US population.

There's definitely not enough Waymos to replace the transport needs of 2% of the population, so 0.1% is a more accurate figure of merit.

> Tesla is executing the strategy that most quickly scales to 100% of the population.

So, uh… where is this “scale” then? This “strategy” has been bandied about for better part of a decade. Why are they still in a tiny geofence in Austin with chase cars?

Waymo is doing it right now. Half a million rides every week, expansion to a dozen new cities. Tesla does a few hundred in a tiny area.

Scale is assessed by looking at concrete numbers, not by “strategies” that haven’t materialized for a decade.

So he doesn't want to go to mars he wants to make a big space chatbot?

Why?

Because it's another tool to move money on books and make it seem that spaceX and or xAi look good to investors when needed. That would be my guess.

Pre-IPO price padding. xAI is going nowhere but at least for now it has some value. Move it under SpaceX, bump up SpaceX’s valuation and therefore it’s opening IPO price. Then kill xAI and write it off.

These are no longer tech companies, to they are financial, and power, instruments of the billionaire class

> These are no longer tech companies, to they are financial, and power, instruments of the billionaire class

SpaceX has made numerous breakthroughs in reusable launch vehicles, human spaceflight, satellite constellation, and rocket propulsion.

SpaceX is the world's dominant space launch provider with its launch cadence eclipsing all others, including private and national programs.

Huge drag we allow it to be controlled by a drugged out nut job.

All as a side effect...

I don't have a dog in this fight but I find it funny that the anti-systemd crowd hates it because it doesn't "follow the Unix philosophy", but they tend to also hate Wayland which does and moves away from a clunky monolith (Xorg)

While Xorg itself (which isn't a monolith, BTW) provides more than the bare minimum, so does the Linux kernel - or even the Unix/BSD kernels of old - yet programs that did follow to the Unix philosophy were built on top of them.

In X11/Xorg's case, a common example would be environments built off different window managers, panels, launchers, etc. In theory nothing prevents Wayland to have something similar but in practice 17 years after its initial release, there isn't anything like that (or at least nothing that people do use).

At least in my mind, the Unix philosophy isn't some sort of dogma, just something to try and strive for and a base (like X11) that enables others to do that doesn't go against it from the perspective of the system as a whole.

This one bothers me too.

Systemd and Xorg are very similar in many ways. I do not know how you hate Systemd and love Xorg unless your real problem is just change.

And, while I like Wayland, I think that liking the Wayland architecture should have you disliking Systemd. But that is just me.

I'm in the same boat. Systemd is an unpricipled mess and ships some quite shoddy replacements for pre-existing components. Wayland is super clean, it just takes for-everrr to add the features that users (and developers) expect. It could seriously have been done over 10 years ago not by heroic development effort, but by not being pathologically obstructive about features.

The two projects are complete opposites except in one way, they replace older stuff.

> but they tend to also hate Wayland which does and moves away from a clunky monolith (Xorg)

It's been 17 years and Wayland has yet to reach feature parity with X11/Xorg. There is doubt that it ever will.

Regardless of what you think the Unix "philosophy" is, actual features matter.

But Wayland is a protocol suite, you're comparing it against Xorg, an implementation that shipped 16 years after X was created.