Wayland is a new protocol, without an established implementation; X11 is an older protocol, while Xorg was an established implementation and XLibre is trying to modernize its codebase. Recall https://xkcd.com/1172/ .

Because Wayland is a strictly a window management protocol focused on policy over mechanism.

> I am not even going to issues wayland has with regards to certain video graphics - that's another not mentioned issue here.

We also aren't going to mention issues Xorg or XLibre have with some graphics setups, because that's neither here nor there. This is a thread about security.

> I don't think so:

Didn't XLibre break some applications when launched?

> Would it not be somewhat interesting if wayland were to be abandoned eventually due to having too few useful features compared to xserver?

It would be interesting to see Wayland abandoned for a better protocol/set of protocols, xserver is neither a protocol nor really better.

Sure, but this is a discussion focused on how humans interact with computers, ergo Human-Computer Interactions, so I'm not sure what's your point. In the end, you don't interact with your computer (in the physical sense) through a 2-key keyboard.

> Please refer to the formal definition found in wikipedia

When I mentioned grammars, I was talking about formal grammars in general. Still, I made a bit of confusion, since formal grammars only define the rules, whereas formal languages are, in one of its definitions, sets over strings/words.

Not that this means much, since the point of grammars is to define languages. As such, grammars (RG/CFG/NG/UG) stipulate the words that a language accepts. Words are important to computers (both in mathematical theory and in material reality).

> I've not said anything about computers being strictly deterministic.

My bad, that was my misreading of "formalized".

> And everything is binary at the CPU/GPU level. Even with specialized instructions, you still need to organize them into a proper algorithm and encode it and its data to binary.

Poor phrasinf on my part, but the "needing binary to accomplish inference" was supposed to be read in isolation. Still, computers do not require binary to operate. There are non-digital computers, both in history and being explored today. There are experiments on using trinary for optimizing LLM inference, for instance.

Also, I find it funny you mentioned "there's no such thing as words [...] at the computer level". It seems you are the one in the need of a computational theory refresh. Grammars are composed of words, which in turn, are composed of elements of the alphabet set. So, in fact, not only there are words, computers are, above all else, word-processing machines. There are more innacuracies (physical computers being stricly deterministic, needing binary to accomplish inference, etc.), but let's leave it at that, unless you wish to press.

> The moral rights include the right of attribution, the right to have a work published anonymously or pseudonymously, and the right to the integrity of the work. [...] Moral rights are distinct from any economic rights tied to copyrights.

Also from [0]

Also, copyright isn't about compensating authors, but publishers. Authors are basically an afterthought.

In regards to countries with weaker copyright enforcement, I think there's a bit of an inversion. Most countries that fail to properly enforce copyright do so due to a lot of structural issues, which also hamper creative thinking for independent reasons. China would be an example of a country with weaker copyright enforcement but also with good infrastructure, and it seems to be overtaking (if it already didn't) the US in terms of creative production (both for copyright and patents).

  void DoSomething(void* p, size_t numBytes);

  void DoSomething(std::span /* or std::span */ p);

std::span provides multiple ways of safely accessing data. For one, it provides an contiguous iterator, so you get access to the algorithms library basically for free. Second, you get safer accessors to the data inside, such as at, and even [] can be protected through contracts. Finally, even if you don't care about/can use these features, tying the pointer and length together reduces chances for variable confusion.

In a sense, the latter is kind of about "landing VC deals", but replace VC with possibly a different audience.

I think this narrowness of mindset is more notable in the last paragraph: "...you want to discover yourself, and maybe some other people, not what a robot can do." In my perspective, what I think OP is saying, and I can personally see, is not about what a robot can do (at least no more than when experimenting with a different language/framework/library/etc.), but how far can you shape and accomplish your idea into reality using AI.

In contrast, with span, you can instantiate only to span (or something similar) and you'd still be able to accept other buffer types (such as vector, array, etc.). Alternatively, you can make T bounded to be trivially copyable. You can't do that with void*.

If we include operator overloading for any types, then sure. i32 + i32 might suddenly start meaning something else. But I think that's beyond the scope of what is normally asked by operator overloading.