dventimi

23 ms·

1. 301.▲
   by dventimi 2y ago

   > Are those market participants willing to pay for that work, in cash or code? TANSTAAFL. Is Ubuntu demanding they pay for that work in cash or code? Obviously not, since Ubuntu generally offers it for free. You think they do that out of
2. 302.▲
   by dventimi 2y ago

   Sure, unless you've already purchased the hardware, or had it purchased for you outside of your control. All I'm saying is, if the the Linux developers made a better product, probably more people would use it. That is entirely ind
3. 303.▲
   by dventimi 2y ago

   Obviously, it's a matter of trade-offs. However, these trade-offs aren't written in stone. If Linux lags in hardware, new or old, that is in part itself a trade-off made by its developers, and if those developers want more people
4. 304.▲
   by dventimi 2y ago

   "Original link opens just fine [for you]." For me, the original link threw up a paywall. The archive link works fine for me, but if it doesn't work for you, don't use it. I offer no warranty for the links I post.
5. 305.▲
   by dventimi 2y ago

   It's ok, but what I'm reacting to is any implication that it's simply a matter of the hardware being "bad" and a figurative shrugging of the shoulders with the further implication that the fault, if there is one, li
6. 306.▲
   by dventimi 2y ago

   "It could be either." This isn't a fact. It's not written down anywhere that anybody can look up. It is essentially lore, rumor, hearsay. That is not a firm foundation for building confidence in a platform.
7. 307.▲
   by dventimi 2y ago

   I don't have a hardware issue with WiFi. I have an issue with Bluetooth audio.
8. 308.▲
   by dventimi 2y ago

   Lenovo is a good brand and the one issue I've had with several models is Bluetooth audio. You and I had different experiences with the same brand of hardware. To a potential new user considering Linux, do you think our exchange would i
9. 309.▲
   by dventimi 2y ago

   In a bit of sleight of hand you just substituted "good hardware for Linux" where earlier you had the unqualified "good hardware."
10. 310.▲
    by dventimi 2y ago

    Put another way, add "poor hardware support" to the list of reasons not to use Linux.
11. 311.▲
    by dventimi 2y ago

    Well that's one data point.
12. 312.▲
    by dventimi 2y ago

    That's right. Reading the above thread it seems to me the distinction between "good" and "bad" hardware is made by whether it works with Linux, but that's circular reasoning. Moreover, my intention behind my co
13. 313.▲
    by dventimi 2y ago

    I'd be happy if Bluetooth audio worked out of the box at all.
14. 314.▲
    by dventimi 2y ago

    Yes, it's still a problem. People will tell you that's there's "bad hardware" and maybe there is, but here's the thing: Windows will probably work with it, even if it's "bad".
15. 315.▲
    by dventimi 2y ago

    I have a brand new Lenovo laptop. Is that "bad hardware"?
16. 316.▲
    by dventimi 2y ago

    https://archive.ph/2024.04.18-071615/https://www.newyorker.c...
17. 317.▲
    by dventimi 2y ago

    Dang! I didn't know that either. Kinda subtle. Blink and you'll miss it.
18. 318.▲
    by dventimi 2y ago

    Wait, how do you create a "memory disk"? That seems like an important step.
19. 319.▲
    by dventimi 2y ago

    Sure. "Money" is inexhaustible but political capital is not.
20. 320.▲
    by dventimi 2y ago

    Yeah, I agree with you. I'm sorry, but whether it was unlimited or only 1GB, it felt unlimited to me at that time and that WAS revolutionary. At the time, GMail seemed vastly superior to the main alternative, Yahoo Mail.
21. 321.▲
    by dventimi 3y ago

    Because it's politically possible, just like it wasn't at other times. Move on. Nothing to see here.
22. 322.▲
    by dventimi 3y ago

    If someone wanted to argue that The Washington Post is worse, I wouldn't put up a fight.
23. 323.▲
    by dventimi 3y ago

    I'm not being hyperbolic. Its influence cannot be overstated, and therefore neither can be the consequences of its journalistic malpractice. Numerous sordid examples spring to mind, but I won't list any here. A moment's refle
24. 324.▲
    by dventimi 3y ago

    Who's "we"?
25. 325.▲
    by dventimi 3y ago

    Diluting or eliminating patents and copyrights would go a long way.
26. 326.▲
    by dventimi 3y ago

    "After all, no one likes it when prices rise." Excuse me? One man or woman's "price" is another's "wage", and plenty of people like it when their wages go up.
27. 327.▲
    by dventimi 3y ago

    This is backward. Workers' benefit from (wage) inflation. The rich do not.
28. 328.▲
    by dventimi 3y ago

    > I don't know, but that's how I understood the discussion - I tried to explain why the Postgres optimizer makes this choice, and why planning this type of queries (LIMIT + WHERE) is a hard problem in principle. That may be a
29. 329.▲
    by dventimi 3y ago

    > Yeah. But the whole discussion here was about the dilemma the optimizer faces if it only has the two indexes on (created_at) and (organization_id), and why the assumption of independence/uniformity does not work for the skewed ca
30. 330.▲
    by dventimi 3y ago

    Now add a partial index and re-run your queries. create index on foo (created_at) where organization_id = 10;