Please somebody correct me if I’m wrong, but I really don’t find the “chip makers don’t have to pay licence fees” a compelling argument that RISC-V is good for the consumer. Theres only a few foundries capable of making CPUs, and the desktop market seems incredibly hard to break into.

I imagine it’s likely that the cost of ISA licencing isn’t what’s holding back competition in the CPU space, but rather its a good old fashioned duopoly combined with a generally high cost of entry.

Of course, more options is better IMO, and the Linux community’s focus on FOSS should make hopping architectures much easier than on Windows or MacOS. But I’d be surprised if we see a laptop/desktop CPU based on RISC-V competing with current options anytime soon.

Am I right in thinking that the article’s main complaint, namely that the means testing excludes those too poor to retire, is wrong? You can still claim pension credit if you’re on a low income.

We have bad/corrupt governments sometimes, that doesn’t mean we should get rid of governments. (Though maybe the libertarian Fraser institute might disagree with me there.)

Firstly, I reckon it’s debatable whether having an active monarchy is a net gain financially (how much could we charge for admission to Buckingham Palace?).

But, for me at least, it’s simply a matter of principle. I believe we are all born equal, and that nobody should be given special treatment due to something as trivial as their ancestry. Having a monarchy flies directly in the face of many values I think we as a nation value deeply.

Also they have a lot of land that their great great … Grandad nicked from the Saxons and I wouldn’t mind that being nationalised.

In my experience it Just Works ™️. I spin up a distro/toolbox, compile some software (e.g. Emacs) then run the executable inside the container, and up pops the GUI window.

If you use distrobox, you can even distrobox-export desktop files, at which point a containerised gui application is practically indistinguishable from one installed on the host system

Its all about how an application goes from “I would like to display X on a screen” to how X actually gets displayed. Wayland is effectively a language (technically a protocol) that graphical applications can speak to describe how they would like to be drawn. It’s then up to a different program more deeply embedded in your OS to listen to and act on those instructions (this program is called a Wayland compositor). There’s a lot more to it (handling keyboard input monitor settings, etc), but that’s the general idea.

Wayland is a (relatively) new way of thinking about this process, that tries to take into account the wide variety of input and output devices that exist today, and also tries to mitigate some of the security risks that were inherent to previous approaches (before Wayland, it was very easy for one application to “look at” what was being displayed in a completely different app, or even to listen to what keys were being typed even when the app isn’t focussed).

Thing is, change is hard, doubly so in the consensus driven world of Linux/FOSS. So, until the last couple of years or so, adoption of Wayland was quite slow. Now we’re at the point where most things work at least as well in Wayland, but there’s still odd bits of software that either haven’t been ported, or that still rely on some features that don’t exist in Wayland, often because of the aforementioned security risks.

I suppose a complete history of Tory government was out of scope for what’s already a dissertation-length essay.

Actually, at the end the author begins to slightly contradict himself by arguing that (neo-)Thatcherism is the long-term objective of the conservatives. I suppose the consistent narrative is that the Tories have a long-term commitment to policies that can only ever yield short-term gains.

This does lead to the rather dire conclusion that British politics is stuck in a cycle where Labour slowly rebuilds the British state, only for the Tories to sack it the instant our fickle support for progressive government waivers.

Machine learning is just gradient descent through a subset of algorithm-space