Unlurker

Average DRAM price in USD over last 18 months (pcpartpicker.com)

To put this in long term relation. Even current DDR4 3200 DIMM prices are at an all time high. These are 6+ year old chip specs now! I even thought stuff was overpriced four years ago in mid-2021 already, but this is a whole new level. Some sample long term data for those: https://geizhals.de/g-skill-aegis-dimm-kit-32gb-f4-3200c16d-32gis-a2151624.html

Inflation metrics seem to fail to capture the increase in leading-edge tech products of the past 18 months.

the other side of the AI bubble are a huge amount of 2nd hand parts of all kinds going to come onto the market?

No, they'll be shipped off to developing nations to be dissolved for rare earths for the next boom cycle.

Waiting for all my out of use 4, 8, and 16GB DDR3 DIMMs that I have somewhere in a drawer to become the new gold standard first.

Acme, a brief history of one of the protocols which has changed the Internet (blog.brocas.org)

There are several other certificate provisioning protocols: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_Certificate_Enrollment_Protocol#See_also

Let's Encrypt did more for privacy than any other organization. Before Let's Encrypt, we'd usually deploy TLS certificates, but as somewhat of an afterthought, and leaving HTTP accessible. They were a pain to (very manually) rotate once a year, too. It's hard to overstate just how much LE changed things. They made TLS the default, so much that you didn't have to keep unencrypted HTTP around any more. Kudos.

I think it was Snowden who made TLS the default. Let's Encrypt did great work, but basically having the NSA's spying made common knowledge (including revealing some things that were worse than we expected, like stealing the traffic between Google's data centers) created a consensus that unencrypted HTTP had to go, despite the objections of people like Roy Fielding.

Has anyone considered the possibility that a CA such as Let's Encrypt could be compromised or even run entirely by intelligence operatives? Of course, there are many other CAs that could be compromised and making money off of customers on top of that. But who knows... What could defend against this possibility? Multiple signatures on a certificate?

I mean, it doesn't help that the browser duopoly is making it harder and harder to use self-signed certificates these days. Why, if I were more paranoid, I might come to a similar conclusion.

A signature on a certificate doesn't allow CA to snoop. They need access to the private key for that, which ACME (and other certificate signing protocols in general) doesn't share with the CA.

> They need access to the private key for that, which ACME (and other certificate signing protocols in general) doesn't share with the CA. Modern TLS doesn't even rely on the privacy of the private key 'as much' as it used: nowadays with (perfect) forward secrecy it's mainly used to establish trust, and after which the two parties generate transient session keys. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_secrecy So even if the private key is compromised sometime in the future, past conversation cannot be decrypted.

Why doesn't Apple make a standalone Touch ID? (jeffgeerling.com)

To be fair, your Apple Watch becomes a secure authenticator for your Mac when paired, so Apple probably prefers that you just buy an Apple Watch.

I tried living with just the Apple Watch instead of the Touch ID for a few months to see how reliable it was... Sometimes it would take a few minutes in the morning before my Mac would even recognize 'hey, there's a watch' (typing in my full password was usually much quicker than waiting for the watch unlock). Sometimes whatever notification happens that triggers the watch to vibrate and allow the double-squeeze-to-accept action would just... not. Other times the above notification would pop up about 8-15 seconds after the prompt on the screen. It was inconsistent enough I got _really_ good at typing my password, since it was normally quicker than waiting on the Apple Watch. Contrast that with the Touch ID, that's always ready to go.

I buy and use the stupid keyboard just for this inconvenience. Although to be honest not the worst keyboard I own, but not the best, I probably rate it like a 7/10. It would be a 5/10 if the Bluetooth wasn’t so magically seamless. The low profile means I can get by without a wrist pillow.

Why would you unbundle your bundle and sell the TV channels one by one?

I’ve been griping over this for years now. I get pretty bad RSI so like using a split mechanical keyboard for coding, but I also use long/complex passwords so I like using Touch ID too. It dumbfounds me that you can’t get a Touch ID pad or even a numpad with Touch ID to sit next to aftermarket keyboards.

On the same note they should make a Face ID camera like Windows Hello.

I was shocked they didn’t do this when they added the “notch” to MacBooks.

I mean, why would they? There is no scalable market. They want to control the hardware for quality and margins. They already sell a keyboard with Touch ID included. Mac accessories are far from their focus area. They don’t because it doesn’t make sense to.

It's so much more fun to use a Mac without TouchID. The whole Safari password autofill experience is much faster and less annoying when you don't have TouchID (does not ask for any approval while you're logged in/Keychain is unlocked.) If there's a `defaults write` command I can run to emulate my Mac mini experience on a MacBook please let me know. P.S. Liquid Glass + TouchID approval needed for every Keychain entry == Windows Vista

System Settings > Touch ID & Password > Use Touch ID for autofilling passwords. Turn this off on Macs with Touch ID and Safari will autofill without requiring Touch ID.

How big do you think the market for that would be?

A big proportion of everyone who uses a non-Apple keyboard with their Mac, I'd say. I would absolutely use one with my ergonomic keyboard, TouchID is so much more convenient than constantly typing your password in.

So you’re already starting with a pretty slim market.

Which is small considering the Mac market itself is small relative to the PC market.

> A big proportion of everyone who uses a non-Apple keyboard with their Mac, I'd say. If you were to guess how many sales (e.g. in units) they'd make every year, what would you guess?

Bigger than the market for $200 phone pockets.

From the way the Polishing Cloth, and recently, the iPhone Pocket gets sold out; this will get easily sold.

>iPhone Pocket That has got to be a joke. It's like they're mocking their customers. I can't stop laughing at the sight of the guy they somehow convinced to model this thing in their promotional photo.

Everyone in Seattle hates AI (jonready.com)

Been meaning to visit Seattle, seems like my kinda place

I use and pay for Wanderlog. Idk how their business is doing, but I love it as a user. They use an embedded Google Maps viewer for locations, so there is no problem for coverage.

Love Wanderlog! But I use it as a glorified notes app to keep track of flights, reservations, rental cars, confirmation numbers, etc, in one place, not for trip planning.

> It's not about their careers. That's the thing, though, it is about their careers. It's not just that people are annoyed that someone who spends years to decades learning their craft and then someone who put a prompt into a chatbot that spit out an app that mostly works without understanding any of the code that they 'wrote'. It's that the executives are positively giddy at the prospect that they can get rid of some number their employees and the rest will use AI bots to pick up the slack. Humans need things like a desk and dental insurance and they fall unconscious for several hours every night. AI agents don't have to take lunch breaks or attend funerals or anything. Most employees that have figured this out resent AI getting shoved into every facet of their jobs because they know exactly what the end goal is: that lots of jobs are going to be going away and nothing is going to replace them. And then what?

disagree completely. You're doing the thing I described: assuming it's all ultimately about personal benefit when they're telling you directly that it's not. The same people could trivially capitalize on the shifting climate and have a good career in the new world. But they'd still be pissed about it. I'm one of these people. So is everyone I know. The grievance is moral, not utilitarian. I don't care about executives getting rid of people. I care that they're causing obviously stupid things to happen, based on their stupid delusions, making everyone's lives worse, and they're unaccountable for it. And in doing so they devalue all of the things I consider to be good about tech, like good software that works and solves real problems. Of course they always did that but it's especially bad now.

As a Seattle SWE, I'd say most of my coworkers do hate all the time-wasting AI stuff being shoved down our throats. There are a few evangelical AI boosters I do work with, but I keep catching mistakes in their code that they didn't used to make. Large suites of elegant looking unit tests, but the unit tests include large amounts of code duplicating functionality of the test framework for no reason, and I've even seen unit tests that mock the actual function under test. New features that actually already exist with more sane APIs. Code that is a tangled web of spaghetti. These people largely think AI is improving their speed but then their code isn't making it past code review. I worry about teams with less stringent code review cultures, modifying or improving these systems is going to be a major pain.

As another Seattle SWE, I'll go against the grain and say that I think AI is going to change the nature of the market for labor for SWE's and my guess would be for the negative. People need to remember that the ability of AI in code generation today is the worst that it ever will be, and it's only going to improve from here. If you were to just judge by the sentiment on HN, you would think no coder worth their weight was using this in the real world—but my experience on a few teams over the last two years has been exactly the opposite—people are often embarrassed to admit it but they are using it all the time. There are many engineers at Meta that "no longer code" by hand and do literally all of their problem solving with AI. I remember last year or even earlier this year feeling like the models had plateau'd and I was of the mindset that these tools would probably forever just augment SWEs without fully replacing them. But with Opus 4.5, gemini 3, et al., these models are incredibly powerful and more and more SWEs are leaning on them more and more—a trend that may slow down or speed up—but is never going to backslide. I think people that don't generally see this are fooling themselves. Sure, there are problem areas—it misses stuff, there are subtle bugs, it's not good for every codebase, for every language, for every scenario. There is some sloppiness that is hard to catch. But this is true with humans too. Just remember, the ability of the models today is the worst that it will ever be —it's only going to get better. And it doesn't need to be perfect to rapidly change the job market for SWE's—it's good enough to do enough of the tasks for enough mid-level SWEs at enough companies to reshape the market. I'm sure I'll get downvoted to hell for this comment; but I think SWEs (and everyone else for that matter) would best practice some fiscal austerity amongst themselves because I would imagine the chance of many of us being on the losing side of this within the next decade is non-trivial. I mean, they've made all of the progress up to now in essentially the last 5 years and the models are already incredibly capable.

Pretty much. Someone on our team put out a code review for some new feature and then bounced for a 2 week vacation. One of our junior engineers approved it. Despite the fact that it was in a section of dead code that wasn’t supposed to even be enabled yet, it managed to break our test environment. Took senior engineers a day to figure out how that was even possible before reverting. We had another couple engineers take a look to see what needs to be done to fix the bug. All of them came away with the conclusion that it was 1,000 lines of pure AI-generated slop with no redeemable value. Trying to fix it would take more work than just re-implenting from scratch.

I've interfaced with some AI generated code and after several examples of finding subtle and yet very wrong bugs I now find that I digest code that I suspect coming from AI (or an AI loving coworker) with much much more scrutiny than I used to. I've frankly lost trust in any kind of care for quality or due diligence from some coworkers. I see how the use of AI is useful, but I feel that the practitioners of AI-as-coding-agent are running away from the real work. How can you tell me about the system you say you have created if you don't have the patience to make it or think about it deeply in the first place?

I wonder if there’s a way to measure the cost of such code and associate it with the individuals incurring it. Unless this shows on reports, managers will continue believing LLMs are magic time saving machines writing perfect code.

Globally, the opinion isn't generally negative. It's localized.

Sure, I meant the anglosphere. But in most countries, the less people are aware of technology or use the internet the less they are enthusiastic about AI.

What does that mean?

Some people take find their life meaning through craft and work. When that craft is suddenly less scarce, less special, so does that craft-tied meaning. I wonder if these feelings are what scribes and amanuenses felt when the printing press arrived. I do enjoy programming, I like my job and take pride on it, but I actively try for it not to be the life-mean giving activity. I'm a just mercenary of my trade.

I mean, I would still hate to be replaced by some chat bot (without being fairly compensated because, societally, it's kind of a dick move for every company to just fire thousands of people and then nobody can find a job elsewhere), but I wouldn't be as mad if the damn tools actually worked . They don't. It's one thing to be laid off, it's another to be laid off, ostensibly, to be replaced by some tool that isn't even actually thinking or reasoning, just crapping out garbage. And I will not be replying to anyone who trots out their personal AI success story. I'm not interested.

I’ve been an engineer for 20 years, for myself, small companies, and big tech, and now working for my own saas company. There are many valid critiques of AI, but “there’s not much there” isn’t one of them. To me, any software engineer who tries an LLM, shrugs and says “huh, that’s interesting” and then “gets back to work” is completely failing at their actual job, which is using technology to solve problems. Maybe AI isn’t the right tool for the job, but that kind of shallow dismissal indicates a closed mind, or perhaps a fear-based reaction. Either way, the market is going to punish them accordingly.

My dismissal I think indicates exhaustion from the additional work I’d need to do to make an LLM write my code, annoyance at its inaccuracies, and disgust at the massive scam and grift that is the LLM influencers. Writing code via a LLM feels like writing with a wet noodle. It’s much faster and write what I mean, myself, with the terse was and precision of my own thought.

Ex-Google here; there are many people both current and past-Google that feel the same way as the composite coworker in the linked post. I haven't escaped this mindset myself. I'm convinced there are a small number of places where LLMs make truly effective tools (see: generation of "must be plausible, need not be accurate" data, e.g. concept art or crowd animations in movies), a large number of places where LLMs make apparently-effective tools that have negative long-term consequences (see: anything involving learning a new skill, anything where correctness is critical), and a large number of places where LLMs are simply ineffective from the get-go but will increasingly be rammed down consumers' throats. Accordingly I tend to be overly skeptical of AI proponents and anything touching AI. It would be nice if I was more rational, but I'm not; I want everyone working on AI and making money from AI to crash and burn hard. (See also: cryptocurrency)

My friends and I have always wondered as we've gotten older what's going to be the new tech that the younger generation seems to know and understand innately while the older generations remain clueless and always need help navigating (like computers/internet for my parents' generation and above). I am convinced that thing is AI. Kids growing up today are using AI for everything, whether or not that's sanctioned or if it's ultimately helpful or harmful to their intellectual growth. I think the jury is still out on that. But I do remember growing up in the 90s, spending a lot of time on the computer, older people would remark how I'll have no social skills, I won't be able to write cursive or do arithmetic in my head, won't learn any real skills, etc, turns out I did just fine and now those same people always have to call me for help when they run into the smallest issue with technology. I think a lot of people here are going to become roadkill if they refuse to learn how to use these new tools. I just built a web app in 3 weeks with only prompts to Claude Code, I didn't write a single line of code, and it works great. It's pretty basic, but probably would have taken me 3+ months instead of 3 weeks doing it the old fashioned way. If you tried it once a year ago and have written it off, a lot has changed since then and the tools continue to improve every month. I really think that eventually no one will be checking code just like hardly anyone checks the assembly output of a compiler anymore. You have to understand how the context window works, how to establish guardrails so you're not wasting time repeating the same things over and over again, force it to check its own work with lots of tests, etc. It's really a game changer when you can just say in one prompt "write me an admin dashboard that displays users, sessions, and orders with a table and chart going back 30 days" or "wire up my site for google analytics, my tag code is XXXXXXX" and it just works.

The thing is, Claude Code is great for unimportant casual projects, and genuinely very bad at working in big, complex, established projects. The latter of course being the ones most people actually work on. Well either it's bad at it, or everyone on my team is bad at prompting. Given how dedicated my boss has been to using Claude for everything for the past year and the output continuing to be garbage, though, i don't think it's a lack of effort on the team's part, i have to believe Claude just isn't good at my job.

Is it true that it's bad for learning new skills? My gut tells me it's useful as long as I don't use it to cheat the learning process and I mainly use it for things like follow up questions.

I found it useful for learning to write prose. There's nothing quite like instantaneous feedback when learning. The downside was that I hit the limit of the LLM's capabilities really quickly. They're just not that good at writing prose (overly flowery and often nonsensical). LLMs were great for getting started though. If you've never tried writing before, then learning a few patterns goes a long way. ("He verbed, verbing a noun.")

My friends at Google are some of the most negative about the potential of AI to improve software development. I was always surprised by this and assumed internally at Google would be one of the first places to adopt these.

People who've spent their life perfecting a craft are exactly the people you'd expect would be most negative about something genuinely disrupting that craft. There is significant precedent for this. It's happened repeatedly in history. Really smart, talented people routinely and in fact quite predictably resist technology that disrupts their craft, often even at great personal cost within their own lifetime.

The best argument I've yet heard against the effectiveness of AI tools for SW dev is the absence of an explosion of shovelware over the past 1-2 years. https://mikelovesrobots.substack.com/p/wheres-the-shovelware-why-ai-coding Basically, if the tools are even half as good as some proponents claim, wouldn't you expect at least a significant increase in simple games on Steam or apps in app stores over that time frame? But we're not seeing that.

Interesting, I would make the exact opposite conclusion from the same data: if AI coding was that bad, we'd see more crapware.

They're good questions! The problem is that I've tried to talk to the people who are getting real value from it, and often the answer ends up being that the value is not as real as they think. One guy gave an excited presentation about how AI let him write 7k LOC per day, expounded for an entire session about how the rest of us should follow in his shoes, and then clarified only in Q&A that reviewers couldn't keep up so he exempted himself from code review.

> and then clarified only in Q&A that reviewers couldn't keep up so he exempted himself from code review. Did you manage to avoid surveillance cameras when hiding his body? ;)

I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone seriously argue that personal throwaway projects need thorough code reviews of their vibe code. The problem comes in when I’m maintaining a 20 year old code base used by anywhere from 1M to 1B users. In other words you can’t vibe code in an environment where evaluating “does this code work” is an existential question. This is the case where 7k LOC/day becomes terrifying. Until we get much better at automatically proving correctness of programs we will need review.

Human code review does not prove correctness. Almost every software service out there contains bugs. Humans have struggled for decades to reliably produce correct software at scale and speed. Overall, humans have a pretty terrible track record of producing bug-free correct code no matter how much they double-check and review their code along the way.

From the article: > I wanted her take on Wanderfugl , the AI-powered map I've been building full-time. I can at least give you one piece of advice. Before you decide on a company or product name, take the time to speak it out loud so you can get a sense of how it sounds.

I think the more pressing advice here is, limit yourself to one name ( https://wanderfugl.com/images/guides.png ) this must be one of the incredible AI innovations the folks in Seattle are missing out on

Marx was correct in his identification of the problem (the communist manifesto still holds up today). Marx went off the rails with his solution.

Getting everyone to even agree that this is a problem is impossible. I'm open to the universe of solutions, as long as it isn't "Anthropic and OpenAI get another $100 billion dollars while we starve". We can probably start there.

↙ time adjusted for second-chance

Valve reveals it’s the architect behind a push to bring Windows games to Arm (theverge.com)

The best thing Valve could do is nuke Wayland/X11/Xwayland from orbit. Wayland is a mess that apps still don't support and doesn't work with NVIDIA GPUs. X11 is ancient and screen tears. Xwayland is the worst of both worlds.

Is the problem in this relationship Wayland of Nvidia? It is a shame that GPU's are pretty much the one big part of your computer that doesn't really conform to the general "ownership" model.

>businesses are never going to use computers running fake Windows. why not? If it's cheaper and compatible, why not?

The value in software at that scale isn't the product. It's the support. And Valve's support as is is really shaky. Businesses will happily throw a few million to make tech support another businesses' problem. Cheaper than maintaining a team in-house.

> I think they could totally ride the current gamers "Switching to Linux instead migrating to Windows 11" wave. Those users would definitely appreciate better compatibility with Windows apps. Sure, but how much are they realistically going to pay for it? I guess improving compatibility with general-purpose Windows apps might help them sell a few more Steam Machines, but it's hard to think that it's really going to move the needle.

> Sure, but how much are they realistically going to pay for it? Nothing? Valve makes it money selling the games on the store. SteamOS is presumably free to install on your own hardware once it has a general release.

The big thing is that the current SteamOS image is incomplete and missing a lot of key features that the Steam products have, since it's optimized for that. That's been the one big sticking point for it as of now.

You're basically reiterating exactly what I just said. Intel had no interest in licensing ARM's IP, they'd have made more money selling their fab space for Cortex designs at that point. Yes, it cost Intel their smartphone contracts, but those weren't high-margin sales in the first place. Conversely, ARM's capricious licensing meant that we wouldn't see truly high-performance ARM cores until M1 and Neoverse hit the market.

> Intel had no interest in licensing ARM's IP, they'd have made more money selling their fab space for Cortex designs at that point. Maybe, but the fact remains that they spent years trying to make an Atom that could fit the performance/watt that smartphone makers needed to be competitive, and they couldn't do it, which pretty strongly suggests it's fundamentally difficult. Even if they now try to sour-grapes that they just weren't really trying, I don't believe them.

Yes but the Proton team needs to do work for basically each game to iron out the quirks, no?

https://www.protondb.com/dashboard Of the top 1000 games it seems 77% are playable. 40% of it needing "some tinkering" but I dont know what that means

People complain about the gambling/loot box stuff, and yeah there's legit ethical concerns there. But overall Valve just seems straightforwardly less shitty towards the consumer than other major companies in their space, by a long shot.

Don't forget GoG which is an alternative game store with a strong anti-DRM stance (all the games there are DRM free).

Sure but it's just being morally lucky. They found themself in a situation where there was temporary and situational alignment, why give them any credit for that? They didn't create that situation. It's like AMD open sourcing FSR or Meta open sourcing Llama. The outcome itself is good, but if they ever become leaders in these verticals, they will pivot to closed source quicker than you can blink, because the reason they're doing it is just coincidental to the public good, not because of a genuine motivation to do good.

I strongly disagree with this approach in life. I am “morally lucky” because every decision I make is to ensure I can always be morally lucky, 10 years later. I take certain kinds of jobs in certain kinds of industries. It’s my same approach to reducing stress or getting things done. I never get a parking ticket not because I’m amazing — it’s because I know if I have to go out later and move my car, I’ll forget, so I’ll just park right the first time. 10 years later and no parking tickets and no stress — if someone tells me “oh you’re just lucky,” I can only chuckle.

That's not unique to AI though. That's very common for tech startups. If they keep doing it, it must be because sometimes it works.

What doesn't work are the predictions of Uber's collapse, of which there were many, cheered on by a great deal who still gather here looking for the next things to see through.

[Slaps roof of barge] You can fit zo many tulips in this bad boy

Ponzi schemes work* too. *At a specific point in time and for certain investors

Please just talk about capital and leverage like an adult. Do you expect a CFO and their team to look at the math and say, "Well, we figured out that we can speed up adoption and bring forward billions of dollars of revenue by spending fewer billions from capital injection and debt deals this year" and then not do it?

This is a pretty serious problem, since we would like lots of companies to participate in public markets so that regular people can gain some of the upside and so there is transparency and increased oversight.

I find it so weird that you say public companies being 'evil' (which is to turn a profit) is a problem, yet you also say you'd like for companies to exist on the public market so that the public can access some of the upside.

>There's always this question when Valve comes up of, "why are people more upset about gambling for cosmetics in a game than gambling for power/features in a game?" Aren't people upset about both? The whole "gamble for features" is pretty much why the mobile market and console market are divorced in audiences (or at least, community). People are "more" upset about Valve here because this is in the console space. They've long dismissed the mobile scene as lost.

> Aren't people upset about both? I'm sure a few people are, but typically no. People are aware that trading card games can be a monetary black hole, but Magic and similar games usually don't take the same heat for the business model that Valve does for loot boxes, even though they're actually worse on paper. > They've long dismissed the mobile scene as lost. I'm not talking about the mobile market. Are you not aware that Magic the Gathering is a physical card game? (though it does have some digital implementations too)

It is typically neither free nor open to develop on consoles. As in, you pay to access developer tools. iOS and Android less so (even if there is a one time charge for Android and a yearly charge on Apple). OTOH I have not heard of them usually reaching out to more than a handful of devs for promotion purposes.

[delayed]

My problem with this take is that it takes ARM > x86 as some kind of given, like there is an inherent flaw with the x6-64 ISA that means a chip that provides it can never be competitive with ARM on power consumption. We've already seen Intel and AMD narrow the gap considerably, in part by adopting designs pioneered by ARM manufacturers like hybrid big-little cores. Another aspect that I think gets forgotton in the Steam Deck conversation is the fact that AMD graphics performance is well ahead of Qualcomm, and that is extremely important for a gaming device. I'm willing to bet that the next Steam Deck goes with another custom AMD chip, but the generation after that is more of a question mark. RISC-V is another wildcard that could end up threatening ARM's path to total dominance.

> My problem with this take is that it takes ARM > x86 as some kind of given, like there is an inherent flaw with the x6-64 ISA that means a chip that provides it can never be competitive with ARM on power consumption. It's a distinction without a difference. x86 is not currently competitive in anything smaller than a laptop. Even in a laptop, the only reason it hasn't eaten the market is Microsoft is uninterested and Apple doesn't tell the Joker where it gets its wonderful toys. Market forces are at play here, exactly like they were in the 90s with Intel's massive gains. ARM is making money hand over fist while x86 is getting squeezed. There will come a time where it won't make economic sense to invest in x86, technical merits be damned.

I sure hope it takes a bit longer than that. It would not be fun having only Qualcomm chips to choose from as a CPU. Either that or Intel/AMD start making their own ARM chips

There are rumours Intel might be the fab for the base M7 chip from Apple. That's the future.

Maybe they'll secretely fund an open source project to emulate only the windows kernel calls that Anti Cheats use.

As a former cheat developer, I think it is impossible since it is digging into some specific stuff of Windows. For example, some anti-cheat uses PsSetCreateThreadNotifyRoutine and PsSetCreateThreadNotifyRoutine to strip process handle permission, and those thing can't be well emulated, there is simply nothing in the Linux kernel nor in the Wine server to facilitate those yet. What about having a database of games and anticheat that does that, and what if the anticheat also have a whitelist for some apps to "inject" itself into the game process? Those are also needed to be handled and dealt with. Plus, there are some really simple side channel exploits that your whitelisted app have vulns that you can grab a full-access handle to your anticheat protected game, rendering those kernel level protection useless, despite it also means external cheat and not full blown internal cheat, since interal cheat carrys way more risk, but also way more rewardings, such as fine-level game modification, or even that some 0days are found on the game network stack so maybe there is a buffer overflow or double-free, making sending malicious payload to other players and doing RCEs possible. (It is still possible to do internal cheat injection from external cheat, using techniques such as manual mapping/reflective DLL injecction, that effectively replicates PE loading mechanism, and then you hijack some execution routine at some point to call your injected-allocated code, either through creating a new thread, hijacking existing thread context, APC callback hijack or even exception vector register hijacking, and in general, hijack any kinds of control flow, but anticheat software actively look for those "illegal" stuff in memory and triggers red flag and bans you immediately) From what I've seen over the years, the biggest problem for anticheat in Linux is that there is too much liberty and freedom, but the anticheat/antivirus is an antithesis to liberty and freedom. This is because anticheat wants to use strong protection mechanism borrowed from antivirus technique to provide a fair gaming experience, at the cost of lowering framerates and increasing processing power, and sometimes BSOD. And I know it is very cliche at this point, but I always love to quote Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety". I therefore only keep Windows to play games lately, and switched to a new laptop, installed CachyOS on it, and transfered all my development stuff over to the laptop. You can basically say I have my main PC at home as a more "free" xbox. Speaking of xbox, they have even more strict control over the games, that one of the anticheat technique, HVCI (hypervisor-protected code integrity) or VBS, is straight out of the tech from xbox, that it uses Hyper-V to isolate game process and main OS, making xbox impossible to jailbreak. In Windows it prevents some degree of DMA attack by leveragng IOMMU and encrypting the memory content beforehand to makd sure it is not visible to external devices over the PCIe bus. That said, in other words, it is ultimately all about the tradeoff between freedom and control. A similar concept, trusted computing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Computing

Ghostty is now non-profit (mitchellh.com)

I have yet to see a way that this software is better than leading terminal emulators like Alacritty and WezTerm. Alacritty is simple and blazing fast, WezTerm has a Lua API and is as complicated as you want it to be. All of the fuss seems to be entirely driven by Mitchell's clout, and maybe some interest in Zig. Given that's the real reason everyone is talking about Ghostty (which I'm happy to be wrong about, let me know), It raises the question: Is crowding out other projects in a space, so that a billionaire can have a side project, really something we should be excited about? Unless the software is actually good, it seems like this is just an attention suck away from better software that could use it.

Libghostty is a pretty huge contribution.

Using a copyleft license can add friction that reduces the amount of value your software can create in the world. I'd honestly rather Apple and Microsoft ripped off my work if it meant that my work provided more utility to a larger number of people.

I truly respect this statement, and position. I always hope that the benefit I've provided through my software is felt, even if I don't directly benefit from it. It's about taking pride in your work, and what it has brought others. I think of it as a craft, like woodworking, brewing, art, music, etc. While there are far more rules, the love of it is what makes it viable. I suspect that those who express concern over your work being ripped off are just showing that they are extremely happy with how you run things. Rather than being under the control of another entity, the actual value is in your personal involvement. That's just my two cents, I hope I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth, and I do value what you do.

Or WezTerm which is much more usable and polished than this. I don't think there are any. It is likely just a social media hype.

> I don't think there are any. It is likely just a social media hype. It's not hype. Here's a comprehensive review of a lot of terminals and Ghostty did very well--"State of Terminal Emulators in 2025: The Errant Champions" [1] [1]: https://www.jeffquast.com/post/state-of-terminal-emulation-2025/

It's a little tongue-in-cheek, but as you can see elsewhere in this discussion thread he mentions this himself on his own X account: "get asked the same about terminals all the time. “How will you turn this into a business? What’s the monetization strategy?” The monetization strategy is that my bank account has 3 commas mate." https://x.com/mitchellh/status/1964785527741427940 Take a good guess where the three commas come from.

>The monetization strategy is that my bank account has 3 commas mate." Having money doesn't mean that you'll have the motivation to continue working on something for free forever.

This community sounds amazing, is there anything similar for adults rather than teens? The “understanding through building” mentality is something I never got to experience as a group, the obvious answer is open source and the like but I wonder if there’s something more learning oriented.

It's tangential but civic hack groups might offer what you're looking for. There's Code for America in the states and g0v in Taiwan and some other places.

Micron Announces Exit from Crucial Consumer Business (investors.micron.com)

My understanding of this is Crucial is going out of business because the alternative was raising their prices. Is that accurate?

Every day I hate AI and big tech more and more. Just when I think I couldn’t hate them anymore, they find a way.

"We're still going to make memory, just not for peasants."

I am a huge believer in AI, but the build-out right now, justified or not, will definitely hit a slowdown at some point. Not being diverse in their customer base could really hurt them later on. Sometimes you keep something going for tomorrow's business even if it is costing you something today.

It's just a brand. They can start it up again later if enterprise demand falls.

Arguably Google and others like them would not even exist without access to cheap off the shelf hardware in their early days.

Exactly! Apple wouldn't have existed without access to the MOS 6502 and other electronics, which allowed Woz to carry out his dream of building a personal computer. Microsoft might not have existed without the Altair 8800. Many 1990s and 2000s web startups got off the ground with affordable, available hardware, whether it's hand-me-down RISC workstations or commodity x86 PCs. Granted, to be fair, many of today's startups and small businesses are made possible by AWS, Google Cloud, Microsoft Azure, and other cloud services. It is sometimes cheaper to rent a server than to own one, and there are fewer system administration chores. However, there's something to be said about owning your own infrastructure rather than renting it out, and I think a major risk of compute power being concentrated by just a few major players is the terms of computation being increasingly dictated by those players.

Can tell if sarcastic.

Ask me again in 3 years.

DLSS Transformer models are pretty good. Framegen can be useful but has niche applications dure to latency increase and artifacts. Global illumination can be amazing but also pretty niche as it's very expensive and comes with artifacts. Biggest flop is UE5 and it's lumen/nanite. Reallly everything would be fine if not that crap. And yeah, our hardware is not capable of proper raytracing at the moment.

> Framegen can be useful but has niche application Somebody should tell that to the AAA game developers that think hitting 60fps with framegen should be their main framerate target.

> Micron is chasing AI glory. Sounds to me like they are using the tried and true method of selling equipment to the people rushing for gold

Perhaps, but when the gold rush is over and the demand for shovels falls, you've now salted the earth you're returning to.

Remember when AOL bought Time Warner? I do think it's proven useful, much like the internet had in the nineties.

Doesn’t hold a candle to ATT burning $60B+ on it less than a decade ago. Or $30B+ on DirecTV. 2010s ATT leadership was something else.

This mostly means richer people have too much money if they can do that. What's next, a new tech allowing you to turn food into money at a rate nobody can afford to eat anymore?

Universal p̶a̶p̶e̶r̶c̶l̶i̶p̶ Money Machine. I'd probably read that short story.