I host a matrix tuwunel server and can recommend it.

My motivations are that it gives greater control, and i think federated platforms are better.

I have it set up on a hetzner vps running debian, which tuwunel provides an official package for.

I mean the Chinese already did step up their game

https://en.mthreads.com/product/S5000

…in making datacenter GPUs

Well i’m from the Netherlands and i use that as the definition so your statement of it being US only is false.

The three worlds model is called the 3 worlds because there was a quite clear cut line between if a county was US, Soviet, or non aligned. and these “worlds” were called worlds because the people of the first and second world had relatively little contact with eachother.

Yes its an antiquated definition i agree, so why try to use the antiquated three worlds model nowadays where it no longer makes sense to use? What is the second world now according to your definition?

My second paragraph wasn’t meant to imply you said it was meant to talk about the term and how its used like how plantfanatic did.

Nor does third world country even mean “developing countries” or “historically exploited, oppressed, exsanguinated nations” it means not US or Soviet aligned but it seems everyone has forgot that.

The US can’t stop being a first world country because the entire definition of first world country is US aligned. (unless the russians completely take over the US at which point they would be second world i guess?)

Edit: Unless you mean the maoist sense, then third world does mean “historically exploited, oppressed, exsanguinated nations”, but in that definition the US would still not be part of the third world.

Wifi should be fixed in the latest version, can you try it?

Thank you!

The camera autofocus currently does not usd the ToF sensor, so it tries to find the focus in software. With the sensor it should be much better.

Wifi issue is known, its not using the proper firmware, a fix is in the works.

How is it jank to put one utility function in a file somewhere you never need to look at again?

That is if you even want to do the assert since if the type doesn’t have the method it won’t compile in the calling function anyway but since you mentioned the strict check it’s fully possible.

And why isn’t it jank to write virtual, final, and override everywhere and have the entire codebase infested with vtables.

One utility function somewhere vs runtime polymorphism everywhere?

Yes.

It was a simplified example.

B and C can’t share any other attributes without duplication of code

struct A {
    [[nodiscard]] virtual std::uint32_t DoSomething() = 0;
};

struct B : A {
    std::uint32_t DoSomething() override { 
        return 0;
    }
};

int main() {
    B b;
    b.DoSomething(); //no warning
}

even if you use virtual attributes aren’t inherited.

If you ment members instead of attributes this is unrelated to virtual:

struct A {
    std::uint32_t a;
};


struct B : A {
    void DoSomething() { 
        std::println("B"); 
    }
};

struct C : A {
    void DoSomething() { 
        std::println("C"); 
    }
};

Now the member is shared and it works fine and there is no virtual.

There’s also no strict enforcement of inheritance.

True, but neither is there when just using virtual:

struct A {
    virtual void DoSomething() = 0;
};

struct B : A {

};

This compiles fine if final is not added.

Not that its an issue as reflection has solved this problem:

consteval std::string_view HasMethods(std::meta::info impl, std::meta::info iface) {
    constexpr auto ctx = std::meta::access_context::unchecked();
    for (auto fn : members_of(iface, ctx)) {
        if (!is_function(fn) || is_special_member_function(fn)) continue;
        bool found = false;
        for (auto cand : members_of(impl, ctx))
            if (is_function(cand) && has_identifier(cand) && identifier_of(cand) == identifier_of(fn) && type_of(cand) == type_of(fn))
                found = true;
        if (!found)
            return std::define_static_string(std::string(identifier_of(impl)) + " is missing " + display_string_of(fn));
    }
    return {};
}


struct A {
    void DoSomething();
};

struct B  {

};
static_assert(HasMethods(^^B, ^^A).empty(), HasMethods(^^B, ^^A));

// g++ -std=c++26 -freflection main.cpp
// main.cpp:30:41: error: static assertion failed: B is missing void A::DoSomething()
// 30 | static_assert(HasMethods(^^B, ^^A).empty(), HasMethods(^^B, ^^A));

Now you get the strict enforcement of inheritance and no virtual.

Why does it make zero sense in C++?

edit: simplified example of what i mean

struct A {
    virtual void DoSomething() = 0;
};

struct B : A {
    void DoSomething() override { 
        std::println("B"); 
    }
};

struct C : A {
    void DoSomething() override { 
        std::println("C"); 
    }
};

void InvokeDoSomething(A* a) {
    a->DoSomething();
}

vs

struct B {
    void DoSomething() { 
        std::println("B"); 
    }
};

struct C {
    void DoSomething() { 
        std::println("C"); 
    }
};

template <typename T>
void InvokeDoSomething(T* t) {
    t->DoSomething();
}

No idea how much of a hot take it is but i find virtual to be a plague upon a codebase.

There are a few very rare use cases for it, but imo most cases where developers use virtual they can use templates instead to achieve the same result.

Doomscrolling big tech? On my Lemmy???

We only doomscroll federated platforms here.

claude, make everything on my website a pointless animation. No i don’t care about readability.

i feel like everytime this is my old man yells at cloud moment but i really hope we don’t get a web where every single element has to slide in.

Call it wistful thinking but I still believe donations are the way forward.

But it requires a bit of a shift in both willingness and ease.

Currently donations are also distributed pretty unfair, they go mostly to the user facing side, while crucial packages remain forgotten.

I would almost suggest some kind of system where you could set aside a certain amount of money, and it would donate automatically to all your installed packages, with some kind of weighting system I suppose.

Nobody is going to accept that.

If Putin doesn’t accept the proposal, the UK and France would send troops to Ukraine.

The UK and France especially aren’t going to accept that, there is nothing stopping them from sending troops now, but they don’t.

I’ll happily accept if im wrong as i am not a lawyer and certainly not a Canadian one, ive tried to find enforcement based on it but i can’t find clear cases on it, this is the legislation:

No person shall manufacture, import, distribute, lease, offer for sale or sell any radio apparatus, interference-causing equipment or radio-sensitive equipment for which a technical acceptance certificate is required under this Act, otherwise than in accordance with such a certificate.

Radiocommunication Act 4(2)

The question becomes does “offer for sale or sell any radio apparatus” also apply to companies outside Canada?

Still, i can imagine a company is not keen on selling products they know are illegal in the destination country, but the seller (outside canada) being liable for the radio act is maybe wrong then.

On the consumer protection part it does seem correct that the foreign seller is on the hook, atleast for provincial law.

This Act applies in respect of all consumer transactions if the consumer or the person engaging in the transaction with the consumer is located in Ontario when the transaction takes place.

Ontario Consumer Protection Act, 2002, s. 2(1)

Again assuming “all” then includes foreign transactions.

I really wish they would just ban Meta instead, would also solve the smart glasses problem.

Yes cause understanding software is important even if you use AI.

And even if you want to go full vibe code and never look at anything yourself the AI does need documentation, compare the performance of an agent on a large project with and without an AGENTS.md, the difference is massive. Without the agent usually does figure it out, but it spends a ton of tokens searching.

Has anyone been able to find any info on the modem outside of “A 4G modem for connectivity”

And how they got it network operator and regulatory approved?

Which networks and carriers does it work on?

MAKERphone 2.0 uses 4G LTE Cat-1 with 2G fallback and works with any carrier that gives you a nano-SIM.

This seems quite vague and while i can’t say for sure but as far as i know you can’t just slot a sim into a modem with any arbitrary IMEI and it works on the long term.