Fake leather is such an annoying scam. Real leather can last for a century if taken care of, fake leather lasts a handful of years before it literally flakes away into nothing.
Though that reminds me of the time I bought a real leather couch set that had absolute garbage everything else, the legs broke after a couple of years. Really not the part I was expecting the manufacturer to have cheaper out on...
Fake leather has a wide, wide range of quality. Polyurethane faux-leather used in many automobiles these days is considered to be superior to leather in terms of durability and longevity. Take a look at old examples of MB-Tex, which Mercedes has been making for ... 60-70 years by now.
Similarly, plenty of leather that will disintegrate and flake into trash or crack and peel, especially if not taken care of well.
Plenty of real leather seats that have done the same. I had a 10 year old real leather Volkswagen that did the same myself.
Meanwhile, I have a 11 year old Vinyl “fake leather” car with no issues, and a 8 year old car with PU pleather that looks nearly brand new. Ironically, the steering wheel is made of real leather and has started flaking in a few small corners.
I’m not sure how any of those anecdotes proves which is more durable or long lasting than the other.
I too am annoyed by “faux leather” as it is so stupid to see some ad saying leather jacket and when you look at the details see faux leather. That is not a leather jacket it is a plastic jacket so cut the shit.
Same level of ragebait as things like vegetarian “meat”balls.
> Same level of ragebait as things like vegetarian “meat”balls.
There is some amazing vegetarian food out there. Both Buddhist and Hindu cultures have been making amazing vegetarian food for literally thousands of years and they are really good at it.
Also, vegetables are just yummy!
Fake meat, no thanks. Incredible vegetarian and vegan food exists, stop trying to fake it. Same with gluten free foods, almond flour is an amazing ingredient but it is different than flour. It is funny that the keto community had amazing gluten free recipes years before the gluten free communities figured it out.
Exactly. I find myself incidentally eating vegetarian most of the week, being Indian, just because it tastes good (and because it's cheaper, but that's another matter). My parents only eat meat on the weekends due to such cost so it's interesting to see people in the West eat meat for every meal such that its lack is noted.
Agreed... when I was a vegetarian, I ate nothing but Indian/Malay/Thai etc and it was great. If I hadn't moved I would probably be vegetarian to this day.
What’s wrong with vegetarian meatballs? As a vegetarian I find naming the products after what they’re imitating far more helpful that coming up with some clumsy confusing name that’s obviously trying to imply what they want to say without saying it… does anyone really read the word “vegetarian” and then still think it must have meat in it? I don’t think that’s a real problem
I see my comment got upvotes but yours is downvoted for some reason, maybe they only read the first sentence and thought you were disagreeing? (or they agree with this for meastball but not milk for some reason)
I joined a compiler team out of college because it seemed like fun and I'd never worked on compilers before.
I went from C# to embedded engineering and reading clock and wiring diagrams because there was a job that needed doing and I was the one there at the time.
I went from embedded programming to running my own startup based on Javascript and React (technologies I'd never used) because I had an idea I wanted to share with the world.
Just go out and try to do things, you may be surprised with what you are capable of!
Yes, but that often breaks down once you have bills to pay and need steady income. Real life tends to complicate things. The risk-averse path is a valid choice too, and often the only sensible one.
Plenty of people take risks even with obligations. I am risk averse, and like to ascribe much of that to my obligations to keep my family happy, but really I've always been this way, and would act pretty much the same without them. On the other hand, I've seen folks go to the brink of poverty to start businesses even with small children to feed. They are far more successful today than myself.
There's a video I once saw of Jim Carrey talking about his dad, who, if I recall correctly, was originally a jazz musician, but decided it was too risky and opted to become an accountant instead.
And then, having given up on his dreams to follow the risk-averse path, he got fired.
Jim's words on the subject were like "well, he gave up on his dreams and still failed, so that's why I decided to pursue acting".
The mass exodus to Linux gaming is already causing a push back against kernel level anti-cheat.
People who 5 years ago didn't give a hoot about computing outside of running steam games are now actively discussing their favorite Linux distro and giving advice to friends and family about how to make the jump.
As much as I hope it to be mass exodus, and as someone who switched over to CachyOS as my main OS in Nov 2025, I'm not sure that 3% of the steam user base really qualifies as a 'mass' exodus.
Going back to my Windows install every now and then to do things feels uncomfortable. Almost like I'm sullying myself! The extent of Microsoft's intrusiveness kind of makes it feel like entering a poorly maintained public space...at least compared to my linux install.
I'm not sure that the majority of people feel this way about Windows 11. They just put up with it in the same way as they do YouTube ads, web browsing without ublock origin, social media dark patterns etc. But certainly, never been a better time I think to move to linux for my kind of user, i.e. the only mildly technologically adept.
There are a lot of Steam gamers with 5 games in their library who log on once a month. There are a few Steam gamers with 5000 games in their library who are permanently logged in. There's folks who play one game obsessively, and folks who tinker around with many games.
I'm willing to bet that the 3% are the kind of people who buy a lot of games.
I'd love to see that "what percentage of games have been bought by people on which platform?" metric. I think it'd be a lot more than 3% on Linux, even if you count Steam Deck as a separate platform.
I agree. Would be fascinating how that 3% breaks down. Although excluding the SteamOS/steam deck users that desktop segment drops to about 2.25%, seeing how 25% of Linux installs are steamOS.
I think SteamOS being available for PC and promoted by Valve could be a game changer. It provides a trusted and familiar pathway for a different way of doing things. But while it would perhaps reduce Windows installs, I can't see it help grow a user base of DIY linux tinkerers, if that is of any importance. I can kind of see it being a bit like Android makes the majority of phone users linux users, but not entirely sure what that means for linux desktop.
I think SteamOS's desktop mode will get used more as people discover it. I was kinda impressed that I could just switch out to a desktop on my Steam Deck, and then used it to play videos while travelling.
The whole "it's better than a console at being a PC, and better than a PC at being a console" thing. It'll be interesting to see if it takes off.
I think you'd lose that bet. The kind of people who buy a lot of games are also the people who are not going to be tolerant of game compatibility issues on Linux; they want to play the game, not futz with their OS.
2 years ago I would have agreed with you, but the game compatibility issues really aren't there any more. Proton has made huge strides, and the Steam Deck has forced a lot of game companies to make sure that there aren't any issues.
> I'm not sure that 3% of the steam user base really qualifies as a 'mass' exodus.
Major tech reviewers are talking about Bazzite. Reddit gaming forums are full of people talking about Win11 vs Linux.
Microsoft only has two strangle holds on PCs - gaming and office apps. For home users they literally have 0 lock in now days other than familiarity. No one is writing native windows apps outside of legacy productivity apps and games. Even Microsoft is writing Windows components in React now days.
I moved to Linux earlier this year and literally none of my apps were unavailable. Everything is a browser window now days.
15 years ago that would've been crazy, I had tons of native windows apps I used every day.
I know linux gaming is getting a buzz and I'm happy to see it. I'm honestly surprised it took so long for people like Gamers Nexus to review linux, but thankful that they did.
But by saying 'For home users they literally have 0 lock in now days other than familiarity.' I think you severely underestimate how powerful familiarity is in anchoring non-tech users to particular platforms. However dysfunctional they can be.
As I mentioned, I moved to linux myself earlier this year. But the first time I tried it was probably around 2004. And I've dipped in and out occasionally but not stuck with it until this year, when I've found it to be a significant improvement on the Windows alternative.
Microsofts own creation presents a real opportunity for an uptake in linux adoption. But I do think it still presents sufficient friction and unfamiliarity for average non-tech users to take on. The only significant issue I had with your initial comment was with your reference to a 'mass' exodus, even if it is confined to the gaming community.
Happy to be proven wrong of course. And perhaps to the annoyance of my friends, willing to help anyone I know interested with a linux install.
But looking forward to the Dec 2025 steam survey. Looking forward to the tiny contribution my little install will make to the linux numbers!
Unfortunately Linux requires zero effter to create cheats on, might as well run no anti cheat. And the root stuff is overblown as user space programs can already read all your files and process memory of that user. How many bother with multiple users?
Not all gamers are playing games where cheating is an issue. It's really only the MOBA Call of Battlefield AAA crowd who care about that. That's not the largest group of gamers, and certainly not the largest market for games.
Fortnite and Call of Duty are consistently the #1 and #2 games every year. The others like GTA, Battlefield, League of Legends and Valorant also have anti-cheat that blocks Linux. It's not a minor issue.
The top game tag by sales [0] is #singleplayer, which obviously doesn't care about anti-cheat.
There's a demographic of gamers who only play the one competitive multiplayer game (such as Fornite or CoD). They don't buy many games, they're not the most lucrative market for game publishers, but they do keep those titles in business. And yes, for them, anti-cheat is important and they're unlikely to move to Linux.
The push back on kernel level anti-cheat on security grounds has always felt odd to me. If you don't trust them to run kernel level code why do you trust them to run usermode code as your user? A rogue anticheat software could still do enormous damage in usermode, running as your user, no kernel access required.
Being in kernel mode does give the rogue software more power, but the threat model is all wrong. If you're against kernel anti-cheat you should be against all anti-cheat. At the end of the day you have to chose to trust the software author no matter where the code runs.
it isn't about what I allow them run on my computer, it's about what they don't allow me run on my own goddamn computer. you can't run modded biıs, self compiled kernel or unsigned drivers. with secure boot enabled.
Except in technology where the gains come from my personal investment in skills. I'm spending hours every week keeping up with the field of software engineering. I've been investing in learning my craft since I was 14 or so.
I'd argue the same goes for many types of digital creators, artists, video editors, animators, and so forth.
> Except in technology where the gains come from my personal investment in skills.
Not really. That's essentially a weaver learning to use the new automated weaving machine. That is what you do to remain qualified for the job. Now, if you were a framework or key system creator, building the underlying platforms that get adopted throughout the industry, I would agree. But just learning to use the tooling the the industry creates isn't that different, other than the rate of change you have to keep up with.
A weaver who knows how to use an automated weaving machine produces 3 times as much cloth as one who doesn't, so why don't they get paid 3 times as much? This is the problem of the decoupling of productivity and wages. It started happening at precisely the moment the gold standard was ended - weird.
> A weaver who knows how to use an automated weaving machine produces 3 times as much cloth as one who doesn't, so why don't they get paid 3 times as much?
An automatic weaving machine, operated by a capable operator, produces 3 times as much as a manual weaver. The productivity increase is the machine, not the operator. That's my entire point.
The owner of the machine reaps the surplus, not its operator.
> This is the problem of the decoupling of productivity and wages. It started happening at precisely the moment the gold standard was ended - weird.
You'll get no argument from me about the ills caused by the financialization of the economy, but I don't think that's what's going on here.
>>A weaver who knows how to use an automated weaving machine produces 3 times as much cloth as one who doesn't, so why don't they get paid 3 times as much?
> An automatic weaving machine, operated by a capable operator, produces 3 times as much as a manual weaver. The productivity increase is the machine, not the operator. That's my entire point.
An automatic weaving machine operator, operating a capable machine, produces 3 times as much as the lack of a machine operator. The productivity increase is the operator, not the machine. That's my entire point.
What's different between what I just said and what you just said? Nothing. In fact they can both be true. Both parties can get 3 times as much money as they did previously. Why don't they? Why does one party get 10x and the other party get 0.7x?
If productivity increase is entirely caused by machines, why did it take until 1971 for wages to decouple? The reality is that both workers and owners would like their share to be as high as possible. In 1971, however, owners seized control of the money printer and they never let it go since then.
> Both parties can get 3 times as much money as they did previously.
Increased productivity shifts
the supply curve which will (unless demand has zero elasticity, which is unrealistic) lower the market price of the good. So tripling productivity does not triple the amount of revenue per hour worked.
> Why does one party get 10x and the other party get 0.7x?
Because the people purchasing labor (capital) are able to get the labor they need at that price. Automatic weaving machine operators are trainable, and if they were getting paid 3 times what weavers were paid then people would rush into that space, driving down labor prices—in other words, the supply of automatic weaving machine operators has high elasticity. The demand for automatic weaving machine operators (i.e. the supply of factories full of automatic weaving machines) has much lower elasticity, so capital (demand for labor) gets most of the economic surplus.
It comes down to the capital owners owning the money printer. And nothing else.
I'm aware of a few attempts to create a labour-owned money printer (using the ideas of cryptocurrency) but none that are getting off the ground. Bitcoin is not one - it was a good idea to try, but it got captured by capital just the same as fiat money did.
You can grasp for vague conspiracy theories about “the money printer”, or you can sit down and think about the concrete factors that make demand for labor (i.e. capital investments in buildings and equipment) less elastic than supply for labor. Here are a few:
- It’s fundamentally more difficult to raise and organize millions of dollars to build a factory and fill it with automatic weaving machines than it is for someone to train for a few weeks to become an automatic weaving machine operator.
- Various government regulations, from environmental protections and zoning laws that make it harder to build factories to safety regulations for operating factories, make it harder to open new factories and so decrease the elasticity of labor demand. I want to be explicit here that I am not saying these regulations are bad—but we must recognize the side effects they have.
- Long lead times on capital investments greatly increase the risk of market movements or technological advances making the business plan untenable before it gets off the ground.
- Organizational inertia slows staffing changes. Corporations often make decisions at glacial speeds. Want to hire a new team? Who is going to manage them? Who do they report to? Where will they work? These discussions can take up months, at which point the market has changed and ehhhh maybe we don’t want to hire a new team after all.
- High cost and difficulty of firing people makes hiring for a possibly short-term market opening less attractive. Think union contracts, severance pay, etc. Again, I want to be explicit that I’m not saying these are bad things, but we need to understand the effects they have.
That's a cool dream, but my question is: is it happening?
Out of the things you listed the only ones that seem plausible are translation team and data entry team, though even there, I'd want humans to deslop the output.
Source: Reality. You are probably already communicating with people who you have no idea are using AI to translate their messages.
I have used AI translation professionally for a few years, and between hundreds of people in long conversations, nobody has ever asked if the text has been translated. Before AI translators, you could write at most one message and people would notice.
I think that is it happening is an important question, but “does the consumer actually want it to happen” should be equally important. It won’t be, because the c suite will just make the decision for us all, but it ought to be.
If done properly you shouldn't be able to tell. A really good voice AI assistant is indistinguishable from front line support reading through a script, and potentially a few steps better.
Meanwhile I can't get a hold of my landlord because they removed both their support email and online formular in favor of an AI chatbot, which means I can't get them to repair my heaters and have been without heating since thursday
Historically, this is not how technology that improves productivity has affected the economy. I’d encourage you to learn more about economics and the history of automation.
Large banks have tens of thousands of call center employees and a large % of calls they handle are perfectly solvable with a good AI bot. They are working very hard to cut call center staff as quickly as possible.
People don't realize how much a call to customers service costs. Back when I was at MSFT, a call to tech support for our product costs $20 to have someone pick up the phone. Since we were selling low margin HW, a single call to tech support completely erased the profit from that product's sale.
Layoffs have already happened and they will continue to happen.
One can argue this is a positive, as a customer if I can push a few buttons and issue a voice command to an AI to fix my problem instead of waiting on hold, that is a net positive. Also the price of goods will drop since the expected cost of customer service factored into the product price will drop.
E.g. $30 / support call, 1 in 10 customers call support during the lifetime of a product, $3 saved, but the way costs are structured, $3 saved in manufacturing can end up as nearly $10 off the final retail price of a product.
(And in competitive markets prices do drop when cost savings are found!)
This replacement has already happened. Everyone who can has long since replaced their phone support with a set of menus that end in "use the website". When you need to talk to the human you still need to talk to the human.
>One can argue this is a positive, as a customer if I can push a few buttons and issue a voice command to an AI to fix my problem instead of waiting on hold, that is a net positive.
If you could do it through the website then you would be much happier than having to argue with a chatbot. And if you can't do it through the website, there aren't going to let a robot do it on your behalf.
"Costs $20" really means "one of those poor call center reps got paid $20, barely enough to pay rent." Once you solve the supposed problem, all those people will be on the streets.
Those who work at call centers are already desperate for any job and have zero savings. I'm not sure where they will down even further. I guess the governments will have to pick them up at the end: give them some fictious jobs and pay the minimum out of taxes from the remaining populace who still have jobs.
The mentality around lifetimes is different in Zig if you are using it for the correct types of problems.
For example, a command line utility. In a CLI tool you typically don't free memory. You just allocate and exit and let the OS clean up memory.
Historically compilers were all like this, they didn't free memory, they just compiled a single file and then exited! This ended up being a problem when compilers moved more into a service model (constant compilation in the background, needing to do whole program optimization, loading into memory and being called on demand to compile snippets, etc), but for certain problem classes, not worrying about memory safety is just fine.
Zig makes it easy to create an allocator, use it, then just free up all the memory in that region.
I've been having an absolutely great time with Rust's bumpalo crate, which works very similarly. The lifetime protection still works great, and it's actually a lot more permissive than normal Rust, since it's the same lifetime everywhere.
The sad exception is obviously that Rust's std collections are not built on top of it, and neither is almost anything else.
But nevertheless, I think this means it's not a Zig vs Rust thing, it's a Zig stdlib vs Rust stdlib thing, and Rust's stdlib can be replaced via #[no_std]. In the far future, it's likely someone will make a Zig-like stdlib for Rust too, with a &dyn Allocator inside collections.
> In the far future, it's likely someone will make a Zig-like stdlib for Rust too, with a &dyn Allocator inside collections.
This exists in the nightly edition of Rust, but is unlikely to become a feature in its current form because the alternative of "Storages" seems to be a lot more flexible and to have broader applicability.
was where i got last year. this december im doing a "prototype" which means its going to be done in zig and im going to clear sone difficult hurdles i couldn't do last year.... also accepting sponsors, details on page.
also disclaimer, im using heavy amounts of ai assistance (as implied in the preview video)
Before software paid as well as it does now, the percent on the spectrum was definitely a high double digit %.
Normies have since invaded and finding someone to geek out with has become hard. (No one wants to discuss the finer points of CPU architectures anymore!)
Mine does too. I make sure there are no ads on the screens, but ads in print are harder to adblock. She hasn't seen too many, yet at four years old could distinguish an ad in a kid's magazine in under a second.
Auto-repeat is the thing that most mystifies me about shorts. I understand the idea behind auto-play, although I disable it; but who on earth wants to watch the exact thing they just watched by default?
Given the success of TikTok, the answer is apparently, "billions of people", but I just don't get it.
My theory is that it is a way of forcefully grabbing people’s attention.
Without autoplay there is no engagement once the video is over. With autoplay there is the risk someone leaves the player on the background and ignores it. With looping videos people get annoyed and (if they’re like me) close the tab or skip to the next video just to get something different
Ctrl + Right click, Show controls will bring up the classic controls (play, pause, volume, seek, full screen) on Firefox. I'm sure other browsers have something similar. Haven't found a way to turn this on permanently for all videos though :/
Though that reminds me of the time I bought a real leather couch set that had absolute garbage everything else, the legs broke after a couple of years. Really not the part I was expecting the manufacturer to have cheaper out on...
reply