For your specific system, you can open about:support and search the page for the word "Blocklisted" - that section of the page includes failure codes that can be then passed to web search (or interpreted by name).

I don't know all the details of what works well or not, but the Chrome team logically should have more manpower to implement workarounds for driver problems, and Vivaldi reuses the engine.

Speaking of the other applications though, most of them don't have to use the dma-buf subsystem, to embed hardware rendered content inside a "regular" application. That imposes a certain limitation on the driver capabilities.

Like, for example, "we have this many users in this, that and that countries" - information which ads brokers might require to draw up a contract.

I suppose this is a change from the original "never and nothing" promise, but still a fair distance from the idea of selling of data that most people would imagine, like tracking and sharing your individual browser history.

[I guess I'm biased in favor of Mozilla. If they kick it, among full-featured browser engines only Chromium remains.]

Summary

Rich Hickey discusses the complexities of optionality in programming, particularly in Clojure’s spec system, emphasizing the need for clear schemas and handling of partial information.

Highlights

* Community Engagement: Acknowledges the presence of both newcomers and regulars at the event.

* Fashion Sense: Introduces a humorous take on the programming roadmap focused on fashion.

* Language Design: Explores the challenges of language design, especially regarding optionality in functions.

* Null References: Cites Tony Hoare’s “billion-dollar mistake” with null references as a cautionary example.

* Spec Improvements: Discusses plans to enhance Clojure’s spec system, focusing on schema clarity and usability.

* Aggregate Management: Emphasizes the importance of properly managing partial information in data structures.

* Future Development: Outlines future directions for Clojure’s spec, prioritizing flexibility and extensibility.

Key Insights

* Community Connection: Engaging with both veteran and new attendees fosters a collaborative environment, enhancing knowledge sharing and community growth.

* Humorous Approach: Infusing humor into technical discussions, like fashion choices, can make complex topics more relatable and engaging.

* Optionality Complexity: The management of optional parameters in programming languages is intricate, requiring careful design to avoid breaking changes.

* Null Reference Risks: Highlighting the historical pitfalls of null references serves as a reminder for developers to consider safer alternatives in language design.

* Schema Clarity: Clear definitions of schemas in programming can significantly improve code maintainability and reduce errors related to optional attributes.

* Information Aggregation: Understanding how to manage and communicate partial information in data structures is crucial for creating robust applications.

* Spec Evolution: Continuous improvement of the spec system in Clojure will enhance its usability, allowing developers to better define and manage their data structures.

That difference in perspective seems to be at the root of the disagreement, too.

So I'd really rather most didn't come to that realization. And, well, we as developers do have some influence.

The proposed solution isn't always right, of course, but it would be incorrect to say that no bug reports come with a diagnosed cause. But that's exactly where a conscious reviewer is most needed, I believe.

This is from my experience hacking on Emacs, naturally.

At the same time, projects that you might ship for an employer or a client, are more critical to check for correctness before deploying, and are often more complex to run and check manually on the regular than writing at least one "happy path" integration test at least for the main scenario (or several).

The overall statement is false (he remains the most recognized opposition figure in the country).

This might even be the year of DDG on the Desktop! Well, the next year, or whenever the lawsuit and appeals conclude.

The second one was too, and though it was quite different in tone, I liked both.

> but they say the outcome of a vote would very likely be pro-Russia, even before they started shipping Russians in and pre-occupation

I heard similar opinions too, but it might vary on who you ask. E.g. we talk about information bubbles on the Internet, but they exist IRL too. That is to say, hearsay is not proof. And even if it were true, one might keep in mind that the reasons for that might not be obvious. E.g. there had been a fair amount of anti-Ukrainian propaganda on the Russian state TV (which broadcasted in Crimea as well) starting with 2000s or so.

Or here's a thought exercise, from another perspective: would you say if US made a poll in Monterrey (Mexico) about whether the people in there wanted to join US, and >50% of them said yes, it would have been justifiable (in at least some practical sense) to annex it? Or Montreal/Canada, for example. It's close enough to the border.

Even though you have the results of "demographics" survey of 1989 that put "Russian" populace at 67%.