Since the title is a little unclear: this is not the first release of Debian/Hurd, which was first released in 2013, just a new one for 2025.

Game support.

What game? I used to need to occasionally boot into Windows to play games, but it has been over a year since the last time I had to do this.

The elephant in the room is 42% “we bought this and it didn’t do shit”.

It depends on whether the cost of adopting AI was included or not; if it was, then buying AI did not hurt, which could theoretically be cited as justifying additional experimentation with it. If buying AI was not included in the costs, then arguably this box is simply wrong because it did increase costs.

(But again, given that this is just a survey of CEOs, it’s not like there is anything rigorous about any of this…)

No, you’re right, me grouping the boxes into “red” and “green” was misleading because the neutral box was red.

They were referring to the original article that The Register is citing: https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/c-suite-insights/ceo-survey.html

Scroll down to the 3x3 grid, and you will see that the percentages in the green squares (corresponding to benefits) add up to more than the percentages in the red squares (corresponding to drawbacks). You can see from this that The Register cherry-picked the numbers to tell a particular narrative. For the sake of illustration, were one trying to push the opposite narrative, one could just as accurately have said that only 13% of companies experienced worse outcomes as a result of using AI, whereas 87% experienced neutral or better outcomes!

(Just to be clear, though, I do think that a survey of the prevailing attitudes of CEOs is not a great way of obtaining an objective metric for anything other than the prevailing attitude of CEOs.)

You missed the part where the reason why they are doing this is because the person who started XLibre had previously committed so much bad code to XOrg that needed to be rolled back that the git history is now a mess that is hindering forward progress. The goal of the new release is to start over from 2024 and cherry-pick the commits they want to keep in order to clean the history up.

If only we had built the web on top of a language that did not have such insane handling of its numbers in the first place…

If by “advancing against Russia” you mean that a bunch of countries were extremely eager to sign up when given the chance, then arguably its Russia’s own fault that they felt the need to join a defense alliance so that their sovereignty would not be threatened in the future. And given that Ukraine has been invaded multiple times by Russia exactly because it does not have a NATO mutual defense guarantee, it sure looks like they had the right idea.

It might surprise you, but I do not actually get paid to post comments on Lemmy for living, so I am allowed to focus on the part of the argument that I think is strangest.

The author of that comment was free to reply in turn by something along the lines of, “Fine, then drop Ukraine from the list, because I don’t need it to make my point.” Instead, they doubled down that it belongs there.

Could you explain exactly how NATO and US imperialism led to Russia invading Ukraine?

There are a couple of approaches you can take, depending on your learning style.

The first is that you could start really easy by creating a 1d engine, and then once you’ve gotten that mastered keep adding more dimensions until you get to 3d.

The second is that you could skip all the way to creating a 4d engine, and once you’ve gotten that mastered just chip off one dimension and bam you now have a 3d engine.

If this is in response to the capture of Maduro specifically, then yes, you are overreacting. Trump seems to only be interested in being a bully picking on those weaker than him, which excludes nuclear powers.

I wonder what the fine folk of the Phoronix comment section have to say about this!

Let’s check out comment #2:

Does anyone still care, besides maybe Putin? [emphasis mine]

- anarki2

I see…

The researchers in the academic field of machine learning who came up with LLMs are certainly aware of their limitations and are exploring other possibilities, but unfortunately what happened in industry is that people noticed that one particular approach was good enough to look impressive and then everyone jumped on that bandwagon.

The impression that I got from this article is that even the author of imake feels the same way, and is only maintaining it out of consideration for legacy software still using it.

Who would have thought that there would be a context in which GNU Autoconf and Automake were considered the modern way to build software?

I concur, photographic information is already standard for international travel, so this is really not a big deal. I am way more concerned about things like proposed changes to require visitors to list their last five years of social media accounts.

No, scratch that. Even black holes radiate out the information they receive. M-Files doesn’t.

That is an amazing zinger!

I was also a bit surprised to see that Vala is so widely adopted, but it is a very natural fit when you consider that it was specifically designed to use GObject as its OOP implementation, making it essentially a “native” speaker in GNOME.

No, you have it backwards. If the total pot for athletes is considerably smaller than the total pot for medical professionals, than redistributing it amongst medical professionals would not significantly increase their individual incomes because there are so many of them that each would only get a small share of it.