Uhh, does the model 13 have a modular panel? IIRC, they don’t. Also, manufacturing modular panel and modular port are very different and the knowledge transfer cannot be that big. The port for example has a looser tolerance since they aren’t really that visible most of the time. So being snug but not flush is good enough. I can imagine the panel doesn’t have that luxury. Stability issue, that I can agree. But then again, I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt since they must handle additional assumptions that cannot be made on other laptops. Namely, modular GPU. Writing a firmware with that new assumption could be a PITA.

You do realize the 13 doesn’t have the back part for replaceable dedicated GPU right? That means the chassis itself must be redesigned since the hole will make the previous experience in the 13 different enough.

Easy or not depends vary wildly. But the usual task is

• partition the drive
• format the drive
• mount the drive
• install the base system

That is the bare minimum, but we need to do more configuration to be able to boot. Hence the next task is configuring the following

• fstab
• timezone, hostname, and networking
• boot loader (I just use the EFI directly nowadays)

That is it. Everything else is usually work specific. Like, if you wanted arch to be a server, you usually didn’t install a GUI. For workstation and gaming, you need more steps but it will vary depending on hardware. The archwiki covers a good deal of hardware from laptop to desktop and their quirks.

To be fair, he could also just be fed up after a long time being ignored for what he thinks is quite an important design decision.

For NAT, there is apparently a way to traverse NAT. I haven’t tried it tho, but the dude has a lot of research on the topic (NAT traversal), so if that didn’t work, maybe others will

Uhhh, no. I think it is better to implement something akin to federation than breaking up a company just because. If anyone wanted to sue valve, then they can enforce interoperability at the very least. But not dividing their business model. We don’t force apple to split their software and hardware did we? We force apple to have a choice of interoperability. From then, it is all fair since anyone can link their data from valve and any other store that opt to implement the interoperability protocol.

Why can’t anyone develop said features? Should the competitor worsen themselves just because no one is able to develop the same features? As far as I remember, valve doesn’t patent something ridiculous like regional pricing or family sharing, so anyone is welcome to develop it themselves. They even make proton open source but apparently Epic doesn’t like the idea of them on the linux market.

So let me get this straight. Any client that wanted to have steam features, like the forum, hosting, workshop, chat, and all the jazz, should be able to do so without paying steam any fee? Why didn’t they develop it themselves? Or should steam sell that as a service to those who wanted it? Say for example, epic wanted to have family sharing. Steam should sell their family sharing feature to epic as a service?

Emulation time it is!

Thanks for the information! Unfortunately, linux users are small in my country. There are rarely any events held here. But this is giving me an idea on how to help people revive their old hardware!

Oh my god this is a great idea. Why is there no more event like this‽

So modern math is proven to be incomplete and we cannot prove that it is consistent either. Those 2 words, incomplete and consistent have a very technical meaning here.

The first is that there is a statement in modern mathematics, which is true, but cannot be proven. And even if we expand it, there will always be such a statement. Hence, incomplete.

And the second, we cannot have a system that proves everything as that system will be inconsistent. Basically if a system can prove everything, then we can easily prove 1=1 AND 1 ≠ 1. If both are proven, then we lose meaning since there is no “truth”. But a consistent system cannot prove its self consistency. Ergo, with modern math, we cannot know if math is consistent.

Now, the problem lies in that we use math to model our perceived reality. It means there is a limit to human knowledge, or put simply, there will be something in the universe that we may never know the answer to.

My favorite is the busy beaver function. There exist, at a certain number, that our modern math cannot make any meaningful statement about the function. Here is a great video about it. (youtube link warning). But you can also look at veritasium video for more in depth explanations.

Our current understanding is not enough to state that with confidence. We used to be so confident with classical mechanics and even claims that physics is almost complete. God knows how long our current probabilistic model will last before we find another better model. It may be probabilistic, or it may not.

Gödel Incompleteness Theorem and the boundary of our understanding of the universe.

It is worse in HW prototyping where sometimes loose wire is all over the place

Not at all. It is indeed helpful to differentiate between an iterable and literal list. After all, sometimes it will bite you in the ass when you don’t differentiate between the two.

No problems. Learning a new concept is not stupid. So you are familiar with C. In C term, you are likely to do something like this:

int a[10] = {0}; // Just imagine this is 0,1,2,etc...
int b[10] = {0};
for (int i=0; i < 10; i++) {
  b[i] = a[i]*2;
}

A 1 to 1 correspondent might looks like ths:

a = range(10) # 0,1,2,etc...
b = []
for x in a:
  b.append(x*2)

However in python, you can then simplify to this:

a = range(10) # Same as before, 0,1,2,etc...
b = [x*2 for x in a]

# This is also works
b = [x*2 for x in [0,1,2,...]]

Remember that list comprehension is used to make a new list, not just iteration. If you want to do something other than making a list from another list, it is better to use iteration. List comprehension is just “syntactic sugar” so to speak. The concept comes from functional programming paradigm.

You can. Whatever the method returns will be the element of that list. So if for example I do this:

def mul(x):
  return x*2

list = [mul(value) for value in range(1,20)]

It will have the same effect. But this:

def mul(x):
  return

list = [mul(value) for value in range(1,20)]

Will just makes the list element all None

Edit to add more: List comprehension works not from the range function. Rather, the range function is returning a list. Hence the name, “list comprehension”. You can use any old list for it.

What it did under the hood is that it iterates each element on the list that you specify (the in ...), and applies those to the function that you specify in the very first place. If you are familiar with the concept of Array.map in other languages, this is that. There is also a technical explanation for it if it helps, but it requires more time to explain. Just let me know if you would like to know it.

Just like malbolge

List comprehension is not whatever you’re doing there. An example of list comprehension:

list = [value*2 for value in range(1, 20)]

See, list comprehension is used to make a list from an existing list. The value of the new list is defined by a function. In this case, the value of a will be 2,4,6, etc.

Your current syntax list[...], is trying to access an element of a list.