The end user disables pixel cleaning because the pop-up annoys them. They then start bitching about burn-in within 6 months, RMA the monitor even though it was their choice to do so, and spread negative sentiment about your brand going forward for being "prone to burn in".
Yes? Are you a human or a corporation talking? Has Samsung achieved singularity status and is now posting on HN?
Besides, the negative sentiment that OP shares here sis for me much stronger than any burned pixel, annoyances like this are a sure way for me to not buy a product if I read this in reviews
Why would Samsung care if he burns out his OLED panel? The alert is there only as far as shielding the manufacturer from legal culpability if the unit fails. If they can point and say "Nah, no RMA, this guy only did 3 pixel refreshes in a year or installed unauthorized firmware" then you're on the hook for a new display. Assuming that Samsung has any more investment in enforcing you to pixel refresh is inane.
Do you also skip oil changes thinking "Fuck you, not today, Hyundai!"
OP wants his property to behave in a specific way, clearly knowing the risks.
I'm not seeing how a hypothetical bad review about a $200B company is at all relevant here. The manufacturer's reputation is not in any way OP's problem.
If you own the hardware, it is yours to abuse, break, and do all manner of things that would make the engineers who designed it cringe: you do not owe any allegiance to them.
..which then forces the manufacturers to develop better solutions - people who are annoyed by manual maintenance tasks or disruptions buy them - Not a bad scenario for both sides.
The eleven day figure features in multiple animated infographics in Jarred's blog post; https://bun.com/blog/bun-in-rust, including a calendar that shows commits over 11 days.
> I rewrote Bun in Rust using about 50 dynamic workflows in Claude Code run continuously over the course of 11 days.
You should try it again. I had a similar experience to you about 5 years ago and completely gave up on game streaming.
However, I had a cold a month or so ago and wanted to play Oxygen Not Included from the couch from my old-ass Linux laptop which couldn't run it. I set up Sunshine and Moonlight in about... 5 minutes? And it "just worked". And worked well. I was able to play perfectly, and that is including my host machine being on WiFi even though all the documentation says use Ethernet if at all possible (which ofc would be better).
It was honestly the most magical thing I've done with technology in the past few years.
Disclaimer: this was only for local/wifi streaming.
In Elm 0.19, they removed the ability for third party packages to provide native bindings for JavaScript APIs that the language or its official packages didn't yet support.[0] The only alternative proposed by Evan is to use ports, which are about as ergonomic as calling a function in a web worker.
there is also web components (best way to do a "copy this to clipboard" button in my experience) and secret back door synchronous FFI through overloading the Object prototype. In all cases the communication is gated through decoders/encoders that can fail; you can only pass serialized data across the boundary from JS to Elm.
The compiler has hard coded domains that control who can use certain features. For example, custom operators aren’t allowed, but Evan is able to use them.
I encourage you to read the whole thing, but the standout quote for me is near the end:
> One thing I learned from discovering The Elm Architecture is that it is really lovely to be able to show up in any codebase and know what is going on. I think custom operators detract from that enough that they are not worth it for the whole ecosystem, even if they are great for specific individuals.
Having talked to people at work who had to remove custom operators when they upgraded from 0.18 to 0.19, they initially didn't love dropping them, but getting rid of the syntax cliff for new hires at the expense of terseness for the old hands was a decent tradeoff. Personally, I find it can be easy in an ML family language to get a bit wrapped around the axle trying to write the most terse, pointfree implementation of something.
Unfortunately the AI bubble means we are witnessing the death of PC gaming. Watch the GamersNexus video, The Collapse of Personal Computing: https://youtu.be/zyQwAhppWj8
Costs are driving manufacturers out of business. Essential components for PCs are becoming out of reach for the average consumer.
This is true for consoles as well. Console prices are increasing, I think this is the first time I witness that. Console prices used to go down until the next generation comes out.
I would recommend looking at a wide variety of sources of information. Some YouTube channels, GamersNexus being one, focus heavily on spinning a gloomy narrative. By wide variety of information channels, I don't mean a different YouTube channel.
1. Q1-26 wasn't the worst performing YoY quarter for new PC sales since Covid.
2. The biggest sector hit was the low end computers. That's not usually what we are talking about with pc gaming.
3. Costs go up on PC gaming, but the costs are going up for consoles too.
4. New memory fabs are going to start coming online in 2027 and 2028. This is a short term crunch.
5. The whole interviewing someone in their living room about their bad professional experience and representing it as journalism feels icky to me.
GamersNexus is an entertainment channel rather than informative. He likes to talk about conspiracies with no real foundation.
AI demand price hikes are affecting everything including consoles, and the hardware for game streaming. It's an everything price increase rather than just PC. nVidia isn't secretly hoarding GPUs to make you rent them from streaming platforms, they simply make more money selling them to AI companies instead.
It does not rally matter if there is a conspiracy behind or not. You can't buy a phone that has a new powerful processor, dual-sim, sd-card and 3.5mm jack. It is just does not exist.
As user I don't care if it is a cartel or just "more profitable", but if this situation destroys companies that makes business from consoles or pc-gaming. Then it will be the colapse of the industry. First will be the hardware, once the hardware is gone, will be the software...
Yes, I tried saying this to both GingerBill and Casey on Twitter but they were unreceptive. I understand their frustrations and I think Wikipedia does have sourcing gaps for projects like Odin. But you can't really understand the spam problem until you've seen it firsthand, and general case notability requirements are one of the first lines of defence against bad actors.
And notability isn't just for spam, the core difficulty with Wikipedia is that people disagree about what should be written in articles. The site only functions because of a masterful Jiu-jitsu move where we redirect heated arguments about what Wikipedia should say into heated arguments about which Reliable Source to cite.
That's the fundamental underlying reason behind all the rules and all the deletion discussions. It's not that the article isn't important, it's not that the content is wrong or not useful or that we don't want it. It's that Wikipedia would be pure chaos if it let people just write without sources, and the fights over content would never end.
Notability just boils down to "can we find enough reliable sources to write an article we can verify and stand behind?". Just quoting what authors of the topic say about their own work would of course fall a little short of what people expect from an encyclopedia.
>Just quoting what authors of the topic say about their own work would of course fall a little short of what people expect from an encyclopedia.
Yes, for the encyclopedia project. But they are many use cases where saving who said what, when, within which contextual summarizable frame can also prove very useful.
Luckily we still have things like archive.org still covering a large part of such a need. Because otherwise, anyone can say anything and its contrary just before denying reality never happened, and then the web becomes saturated of every assertion and its contrary being all covered in some farmed nonsense without any way to weight them in the hand of general public.
The gate is reliable secondary sources. These sources, for the most part, don't check their facts using Wikipedia. These sources also tend to have feedback mechanisms, so if they have make a mistake, their response is to correct it in a timely fashion.
This is what makes them reliable in Wikipedians' judgement. A publication that regularly made errors, or published claims regardless of veracity, or left errors in place even after being notified of them, would quickly lose its "reliable" badge. Wikipedians even track the downfall of a reliable source becoming an unreliable one, and say you can only cite articles from the time period the source was reliable.
And Wikipedia itself is ready and waiting to remove citogenesis and prevent it coming back, the moment it's no longer in a reliable source. So while citogenesis can happen, it's detected and resolved over time, it's not some "gotcha".
Encyclopedias are not designed to report on pop culture. The entire nature of an encyclopedia is to be downstream of good secondary sources, ideally academic, and summarise what those good secondary sources have said about specific topics.
Side note, it is very funny that the same people lamenting the state of Wikipedia seem to be desperate to have their topic included on it. If the site sucks, why care about it so much?
It's funny. Today people say that of Wikipedia, as if it was trustworthy. But it used to be common knowledge to just "don't trust anything on Wikipedia". Wikipedia was never like a regular encyclopedia, it just wanted to be one.
Its biggest advantage over traditional encyclopedias was its breadth and how quickly it could be updated. The trade-off was that articles could vary greatly in quality and could be edited by anyone, making accuracy less consistent than in traditionally edited reference works. So the effort to reduce breadth and say it shouldn't be updated quick... that's just strikes me (as someone fairly old) as kind of funny.
TBH, "Don't trust anything on Wikipedia" was always just stuck up posturing. Plenty of badly sourced, badly edited and biased articles in regular encyclopedias too, but because Wikipedia is contributed to by the unwashed masses, don't trust it.
"Don't use Wiki as a primary source" is much more to the point - it's not meant to be. Use it to find the primaries.
Also, I don't see this as "reducing breadth" so much as attempting to hold to a minimum standard of "has this been written up anywhere by someone other than the people who started it?" which isn't perfect, but it's been the stance since the beginning.
1. So are most other encyclopaedias, and most don’t even give you references or citations for an article
2. We are literally decades from that point now. Surely you must agree that times have changed.
When open online spaces gain popularity, the threat of devolving into a cesspool of bigotry and misinformation rears its head. Sadly, moderation isn't optional.
But how do you moderate? Do you establish your own ministry of truth? Only allow contributors with a university email address (shoutout to the arXiv)?
Wikipedia decided to externalize part of the vetting process by placing formal restrictions on the sources you're allowed to collect information from.
Sadly, there currently aren't any such sources for Odin.
Interesting article (I tend to agree with you re SNG in the programming field). But unfortunately I couldn't easily absorb the substance as your site needs some work on mobile:
- text completely overflowing the background
- body text is arguably too small
- the masonry grid layout of posts does not work visually
