!(r.SendNow || r.DryRun) requires you to read the entire statement and then negate the result. While !r.SendNow && !r.DryRun each part of the statement stands on its own and is negated for themselves. That is how I read. I like the Ai suggestion more, because that is how I would write it myself. What I like about it is, that the negation of is right there with the variable. It gets more important, the more you divide sub-expressions in multiple lines.

I take it.

One can promote and recommend something without using it.

Pretty cool. I know consoles could do this already and always wondered if it would be possible on Steam Deck too.

Thunderbird. I even use Thunderbird as my RSS reader too.

JSON output support for various commands, making it easier to parse flatpak command output programmatically

Nice. Instead manually parsing the stdout data, now there is a “proper API” to get information.

It’s actually the first time I used to do Ai assisted unit test creation. There were multiple iterations and sometimes it never worked well. And the most important part is, as you say, think through and read every single test case and edit or replace if necessary. Some tests are really stupid, especially stuff that is already encoded in the type system through Rust. I mean you still need a head for revision and know what you want to do.

I still wonder if I should have just gave it the function signature without the inner workings of the function. That’s an approach I want to explore next time. I really enjoyed working with it for the tests, because writing tests is very time consuming. Although I am not much of test guy, so maybe the results aren’t that good anyway.

Edit: In about 250 unit tests (which does not cover all functions sadly) for a cli json based tool, several bugs were found thanks to this approach. I wouldn’t have done it manually.

I like writing code myself, its a process I enjoy. If the LLM write it for me, then I would only do the worse part of the job: debugging. Also for many people let the Ai write code means less understanding. Otherwise you could have written it yourself. However there are things when the Ai is helpful, especially for writing tests in a restrictive language such as Rust. People forget that writing the code is one part of the job, the other is to depend on it, debug and build other stuff on top.

You shouldn’t feel any lag at all, even on Bluetooth if its working properly. Maybe there are other things going on that adds to the overall lag. You should test another controller that is not using the xpadneo driver.

I quickly searched the web: https://superuser.com/questions/1653283/how-to-resolve-the-input-lag-when-using-xbox-series-xs-with-bluetooth-on-linux and the person solved the issue by updating controller firmware, the Linux Kernel and the xpadneo driver itself. But its an old post, so maybe not what you need to do. I don’t know what distribution and version you have and if you can update at all.

And? The opposite is also true: If people are happy with Windows, then it does not matter how good the alternative is.

Long story short, thanks to the ongoing success of Valve’s Steam Deck and other handhelds plus Steam Play (Proton) working out so well

… plus people get more and more fed up with Windows.

I used the Xbox 360 game controller for years on PC, then switched to Xbox One, then Xbox One S and then to the Xbox Series S controller. So we speak about decades at this point. I played extensively Steam games and emulation for all kinds of systems (where input latency is extremely important in some games). At the same time I also have used extensively a wired classic SNES like shaped controller that is wired connected and recently I replaced my Xbox controller with a 8bitdo wireless controller.

So you see there is some experience in using and in comparison. Latency was never an issue and I never felt it. But the common theme here is, I never used Bluetooth and always use the (even if its proprietary) dongle by Microsoft for connection. That’s because it should provide superior connection stability and better input latency. I always had issues with Bluetooth before (I mean with any other kind of hardware connection) and always hated it and avoid it.

Having said this, Bluetooth can be good. In example the Playstation consoles and their controller are using Bluetooth and its not an issue there. But you have to make sure that the driver and the Bluetooth dongle (or chip) is compatible and working fine, in combination with the controller. If you notice a difference between wired and wireless, then its a sign that the wireless connection doesn’t work properly for your setup. I think my best advice is to buy the proprietary dongle from Microsoft (as I hate doing this, but its the best for Xbox controllers). You will also need to change the driver from xpadneo to xone.

However I switched recently to a different controller because I experienced a few issues with the driver. Because the driver wasn’t updated for a while and it broke with a new Linux Kernel update on my Archlinux based system.

Warning! The protocol described in this file is experimental

Nice, I didn’t know about that. But the problem with Wayland is like always it takes too long. That’s why nobody implements it.

(Edit: I always mix up the terms server side and client side decoration. Hopefully by my description its clear which one I’m referring to.)

Pro SSD: the window manager should decide how the apps look

• user: consistency across the operating system usage
• dev: generalized and less burden on the dev, less dependencies to worry about and development specific to GNOME
• both: flexible, change your window manager and the app changes without modifications (at least in ideal world)

At least for a normal window. I wouldn’t mind if an application can request with a high priority that it wants to display its own decorations. In that case there should be an option to disable decorations from the window. That is how some applications do work and allows for a flexible usage based on users configuration. Now if there was just an official API from all window managers that can check this configuration, then the user wouldn’t even need or know there is a setting for.

The thought experiment (and this debunking) also assumes that the simulation is a perfect simulation of the “laws of physics”. I would even say, if even there were multiple such simulations (infinite), its not guaranteed that each of them are identical in their physics. Not only depends on the knowledge of their builders, also they might even want to adjust it.

This possibility was never even in the equation (for or against the idea).

But these are just thought experiments, which do not proof anything. I could also have some thought experiments and tell the odds based of our current knowledge. We have no clue and then talking about likelyhoods makes no sense. It’s like talking about infinity. Just thought experiments to me, not real science that proof the one or other.

that no computer could ever simulate.

That assumes that the über-universe has the same laws of physics. We cannot, and will never be able to tell if this is a simulation universe. These professors assume that the other universe simulating ours is very similar. The only thing they could proof is, that the universe which simulates ours, cannot have the same laws of physics. Maybe that.

wow

(Edit: Sometimes I have these trash comments.)

deleted by creator

Why would anyone care what you say then?