The Arch wiki explicitly links to the AUR for lots of things, but the prime example is probably the NVIDIA page - https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/NVIDIA - this page is going to be massively viewed, and if you have Pascal or older architecture the suggested driver is from, you guessed it, the AUR.
Nowhere on this page does it suggest that the AUR is at all untrustworthy.
The frame is a compositional aid, and it does have quite a strict relation to what the camera is capturing.
The best version of your complaint is that the viewfinder does not have accurate frame lines that account for parallax at various distances, which is true, but there are still ways of using the viewfinder to assist in composition.
If you take two or three shots at two meters, and look at what the camera captured versus where your composition was in the frame, you can immediately intuit a baseline for where the frame lines 'should be' on the viewfinder at two meters. "Occupies the bottom right two thirds of the viewfinder" for example.
Without a reference frame, these intuitions (and your aiming of the camera!) are going to be far less accurate.
It's totally incorrect to state that the area served by either Sydney or Melbourne airport has less economic activity than the area served by "any airport in the US", or even the vast majority of US airports, so whatever laptops-at-airport (and I suppose airpods-in-ears) is a proxy for it sure isn't economic activity.
This is the primary reason the Minibook X won out in my searches: It's the only small device that has a keyboard layout that puts all of the keys in the right spots.
They're sometimes an odd size, but when I hit the wrong key due to a sizing constraint, I don't even have to think: Backspace, hit the right key with mildly adjusted positioning.
I've tried a few machines with different layouts, and that's never the case - and having to stop and look at the keyboard to find a key interrupts flow in the worst kind of way.
I have this laptop, and it is amongst the best laptops I have ever owned, despite being awful in many ways. It has almost completely replaced my use of my M4 Macbook Pro, simply because I always have it with me. That, and it can run Linux.
I don't share the complaints of the OP about the keyboard or the screen, though. The keyboard is fine, I can hit about 110WPM on it, slower than my regular pace, but enough that there's no dramas. The layout is great: Occasionally there's keys that are too small (looking at you, apostrophe) but everything is at least in the right spot, which is way more important.
The 2K display at 10" is high enough DPI that everything is totally crisp, and you can unlock ~95Hz (bad for video, good for everything else) with a bit of a tweak. You can also smash a byte into the EC at the correct offset and access the full unrestricted BIOS -- mostly to crank the RAM up to 4800MT/s.
I'm running vanilla Arch with Niri and Noctalia, and it's a dream. It's my primary dev machine, used in combination with a remote server with a tonne more grunt. If it broke tomorrow, I'd buy another - and I wouldn't do that with my macbook.
I agree. The keyboard is fantastic, it is the best smallest keyboard I've ever used. Debian 13 works out of the box and there are no screen rotation issues.
The cause is just that the panel is mounted rotated on the device. It's supposed to be used in a tablet where the top is the short end and the side is the long end, opposite to a laptop.
> Yes, but no room is made for people who see no use for it. There is a forced-consensus that this technology is useful, which I have to combat against at work.
This is the crux of the issue -- The technology is useful. Using it appropriately is probably the thing that people are ignoring, but you're conflating one and the other in your comment.
It is not useful to you in this case, and complain that it is an overall detriment in your industry. Those are fine and reasonable statements and conditions, and I see no reason to disagree with them... But your first statement, people who see no use for it? That is, to me, as off-putting an opinion as the consequence-unaware hypebeasts who are running OpenClaw with access to their trading accounts and can't see why others aren't.
I sympathise with the idea that everyone wants to use the new hammer and so is treating every problem like a nail, but hammers are still pretty good tools. (And you can ignore the ex-NFT-fans hammering on their dicks in the corner.)
I mean only that I see no use for it myself, in my own work. I'm sure there are people working in roles around me who believe they get some use out of AI doing their work for them, and they will have to answer to auditors when they find problems with their work, or when someone is killed.
To me, as a non-techie person, it feels as if people who work in software believe that because their work can be done by AI, everyone else's can, too. Or that this would be better, simply because it proposes a technological solution to human work — it is taken as read that a solution which uses cool sounding computers and data farms is better than one done by humans with a pen and a pad and life experience. They don't have to justify this belief, because the money is on their side.
I don't mean to tar you with a too-wide brush, and I feel like you have a good handle on your personal acceptance for LLM assistance. No complaint there.
I do think, maybe alternative to your view, that LLMs can provide useful feedback to graduate-level employees in most fields.
It is not that the work can be done by LLMs -- we're not there, yet, in software or otherwise -- but that LLMs as useful tutors specifically in regard to denouncing known bad ideas is largely applicable all over.
What I mean by the above is that I have yet to find a truly interesting idea spun from whole cloth by an LLM. They're mediocre at it. They're trained from the aggregate thoughts of those in every industry, and you and I both know that the aggregate of the industry is, generally, mediocre.
Conversely, though, is the hit: They won't be worse than mediocre. An indefatigable tutor who gives no great advice but will counsel you against blowing yourself up (or cutting a limb off with a rope, or falling overboard) is, to me, worth an amount.
The failure modes will get better, the advice will get better. Are we there, now? Unsure. You can tell us all better.
What does that really mean though — ten more years of data centers exploiting local communities for their resources will mean that a computer might be able to teach people to tie knots, and reliably check their work... No government would allow that to certify someone, and no company would risk the lawsuit when someone dies doing what the AI tells them, so it's a non-starter. Even if it were possible, and governments got on board with certifying training like that, would anyone think this was better than what we have now?
What are the likely use cases in my industry then? That AI is used to bodge the important paperwork that protects lives; is used to draft legislation; is used by both employees and management to do things like personal development reports.
Is anyone meant to be impressed? Is this worth communities having their water stolen from them?
I appreciate I am skeptical, but it is hard not to be when the world spends all day telling you a piece of technology is going to fundamentally change the world, and in real life you only see people use it to blag CVs, personal reports, and lesson planning.
> "What does that really mean though — ten more years of data centers exploiting local communities for their resources"
That is purest hyperbole. Data centers use a lot of electricity, but they are hardly looting local communities. The water issue is wildly exaggerated, unless a data center is located in a desert, because most water is recirculated.
And why do you think no one will allow an AI to certify someone on certain topics. Their knowledge at the moment is roughly the average of people in the field. Is an average person in your field not able to certify others? In any case, AIs are improving very rapidly, so what is not possible today will be possible tomorrow.
As an example, let me point out the Tesla FSD. On a per-mile basis, self-driving Teslas have a massively lower accident rate (less than 20%) than human-driven vehicles. That is a very physical activity being handled by an AI.
That’s also an algorithm. An unsophisticated one, but an algorithm nonetheless.
You can (and should) argue that such a simple algorithm doesn’t “count”, but fundamentally the exact wording of the grandparent post never works, legislatively.
> That’s also an algorithm. An unsophisticated one, but an algorithm nonetheless.
The problem always has been "(personalized) opaque algorithms". Time sorted by followers isn't really opaque, nor is "sorted by likes" or whatever. The problem is always pulling in parameters that a users either has no active control over or are so variable they effectively could be random.
Can everyone just please stop saying "well ackshually sorting is done with an algorithm" and just assume at least not-idiotic-intent here? No no one will ban "algorithms" or suggests anything of that kind. Yes it's a terrible name. Yes it will be hard to formulate what's allowed and what isn't. But a very simple litmus test is: what are the inputs to the algorithm?
users coarse geographic location? Fine
AI detected language of the content? Fine
global popularity of the video clip? fine
user's past behavior: number of videos with similar content they watched? Average number of seconds this particular user usually waits until scrolling further?
The pattern is obvious. Personalized algorithms is what's targeted. Let's keep the discussion intelligent.
Your litmus test isn't correct and your assumption of personalisation isn't correct either. All of the criteria that you see as fine are controlled under the relevant legislation and are considered personalisation, requiring transparency etc.
Furthermore, bills have been brought to EU parliaments that have erroneously attempted to ban all forms of ranking, which would include even the most basic information retrieval algorithms. So it isn't obvious at all what is meant by 'algorithm'.
Nowhere on this page does it suggest that the AUR is at all untrustworthy.