Whilst not open source, I appreciate that the notes are locally stored in straightforward markdown. I no longer use Obsidian, but I appreciated how there was next to no platform lock-in (the only snag I experienced in moving to a different note taking approach was a couple of plugins that gave additional features. But that’s easy to avoid if portability of data is important)

I’ve not used it, but I’ve heard a lot of good things about Helix

“Multiple new scylla songs too, Supergiant are spoiling us.”

Awesome. I love how catchy the Scylla songs are

The early-mid game is one of my favourite gaming experiences of all time. It’s usually the most part of a survival/crafting game, but I was surprised by how well Subnautica was peppered intrigue.

As you and many others on this thread have said though, a mobile port seems odd. Even if the UI were reworked, I can’t imagine that players would be able to feel the same sense of awe that I associate with the game.

Neat info. Positive comments in this thread prompted me to go read the thing, and I appreciated how it is a ground-up explanation, but still quite accessible. Now I understand why WINE is not an Emulator (I had been wondering, tbh)

I hadn’t considered this, so thanks for the info

When you get a moment, you could try switching over to the tty again, login to the shell, and then try typing in the command btop (which I think is the Bazzite specific version of the default “top” command, and should be installed by default). Top is basically a task manager, and you can see what programs are running (and taking up resources) right there in the terminal. If your system freezes up, you can often unfreeze it by killing the unresponsive programs. It’s probably useful to familiarise yourself with that interface before you need it.

Echoing Jubilant Jaguar’s sentiment about defaults mattering, I think that sometimes an excess amount of choice can be overwhelming such that a user is less empowered to make choices about things they do care about (Leading to a less steep learning curve). Sensible defaults need not remove anyone’s choice

I use Annas(hyphen)archive(dot)org

Adding the solution to your post is a classy move, and I approve

I dual boot Fedora and Arch. Fedora was just a fluke because it seemed like one of the most mainstream distros, and I was a Linux noob.

I liked Arch though because the Arch wiki is so useful for a beginner to learn from, even if you’re not on Arch. At first, Arch seemed too complex and difficult for me, as a beginner, but when I kept finding myself at the Arch wiki when troubleshooting, I realised how powerful good documentation is. I installed Arch with a “fixer-upper” type mindset, with the goal of using the greater power and customisability that Arch offers to build a config/setup that worked for me (learning all the while). It was a good challenge for someone who is mad, but not quite so mad as to dive into Gentoo or Linux From Scratch

My friend has had quite severe ill health, including some unfortunate, impromptu hospital trips. I bought them a Steam Deck as a gift, shortly before their health worsened, and it has literally been a lifesaver for them. It has been tremendously powerful for them to have a way to stay connected with their gaming friends, even when they can’t make it to their desk.

I don’t own a Deck myself, but this alone would make me a big fan (though I also appreciate that the Steam Deck has made streamline gaming on my Linux desktop)

A friend who is (was?) a writer told me that it’s tremendously difficult to find work nowadays as a writer, and so much of what is available is just proof reading and copy editing AI slop. Apparently it’s pretty soul sucking, especially when they’re basically forbidden from doing any significant rewrites or error checking, and they’re expecting to be grateful for the opportunity

“Discord just last week shut down a server that was my main local friend group, and we had to scramble to reconstitute it.”

Damn, that sucks. How big was the server? Do you know why it was shut down?

(n.b. I am neither a rust, nor C developer so I am writing outside my own direct experience)

One of the arguments brought up on the kernel.org thread was that if there were changes to the C side of the API, how would this avoid breaking all the rust bindings? The reply to this was that like with any big change in the Linux kernel that affects multiple systems with multiple different teams involved, that it would require a coordinated and collaborative approach — i.e. it’s not like the rust side of things would only start working on responding to a breaking change once that change has broken the rust bindings. This response (and many of the responses to it) seemed reasonable to me.

However, in order for that collaboration to work, there are going to have to be C developers speaking to rust developers, because the rust developers who need to repair the bindings will need to understand some of what’s being proposed, and thus they’ll need to understand some level of C, and vice versa. So in practice, it seems nigh on impossible for the long term, ongoing maintenance of this code to be entirely a task for the rust devs (but I think this is taking an abnormally flexible reading of “maintenance” — communicating with other people is just part and parcel of working on such a huge project, imo)

Some people have an ideological opposition to there being two different programming languages in the Linux kernel full stop. This is part of why the main thing that rust has been used for so far are drivers, which are fairly self enclosed. Christoph Hellwig even used the word “cancer” to describe a slow creep towards a codebase of two languages. I get the sense that in his view, this change that’s being proposed could be the beginning of the end if it leads to continued prevalence of rust in Linux.

I haven’t written enough production code to have much of an opinion, but my impression is that people who are concerned are valid (because I do have more than enough experience with messy, fragmented codebases), but that their opposition is too strong. A framework that comes to mind is how risk assessments (like are done for scientific research) outline risks that often cannot be fully eliminated but can be reduced and mitigated via discussing them in the context of a risk assessment. Using rust in Linux at all hasn’t been a decision taken lightly, and further use of it would need ongoing participation from multiple relevant parties, but that’s just the price of progress sometimes.

I’ve been meaning to check out Addy.io for a while now, because you’re not the first person I’ve seen mentioning it in threads like this. Your comment was the straw that broke the camel’s back and I’ve finally gone and checked it out. Thanks for including a link in your comment; it helped reduce the activation energy of setting it up

When I first started using Obsidian, I used folders too much because I felt like things were “messy” if not tidied away. I already knew that one of the weaknesses of hierarchical folder systems is how it can make having an overview of the system harder, but it took a while for me to properly understand that.

As you say, it’s necessary to be proactive with making links to things. I found that when I used Obsidian for journalling, I started to put square brackets around loads of stuff, because the inactive links didn’t do me any harm, but they did highlight what might be useful as active pages. Something I picked up from the Zettelkasten crowd was occasionally having a “Map of Content” page, where I used it as an index of topical links. It always worked best when I allowed them to arise naturally, as needed. Once I got the trick of this, I found I was able to find things far more easily, because I was able to navigate via the links.

Tags are a tricky one to use. I never found them useful as a primary organisation method — they were worse than both hierarchical folders and link based organising in that respect. They were super useful as an augmentation to my organisation though, especially when I used them sparingly.

This is all an overlong way of saying that yes, I agree with you, using systems like Obsidian do require a switch in how you think in order to best use them. Something that I always enjoy pondering is whether pushing ourselves out of our comfort zone is something that’s inherently good — something something cognitive flexibility? I don’t know, but I enjoy endeavours of this sort nonetheless

I don’t think duplicate link protection is what I mean, unless I’m misunderstanding how that feature works. I.e. if I had bookmarks “example.com/a” , “example.com/b”, these are duplicates even though they’re at the same site. But if I visit the page “example.com/c” and I went to go bookmark it, I would like to be able to see a thing that says '"from this site, you have also bookmarked: “example.com/a” , “example.com/b”.

I don’t imagine this is possible. I was probably going to make something to give me that functionality at some point, because I haven’t seen anyone having the same problem as me.

I have a question which may turn out to be a feature request

The question: How easy would it be to use Linkwarden to check whether I have already bookmarked something from the site I’m currently on? To clarify why I’m asking this, I have been generally trying to be more mindful in what media I consume, which means the things I enjoy reading are fragmented pieces that I may stumble upon through word of mouth.

For example, I read post ‘a’ on blog ‘A’ and I enjoy it so much that I bookmark it (‘Aa’) so I can find it for later sharing. Many months later, I am linked to post ‘b’ on site ‘A’, but I don’t remember whether I have been to this site before, and knowing that I had previously enjoyed post Aa may prompt me to actually read post Ab (or properly set aside for later)

Native Firefox bookmarks don’t do this, I know that much. It’s something I’ve been meaning to figure out how to solve, because one of the delightful, if somewhat overwhelming parts about floating on the ‘small web’, is the trust that builds up gradually after seeing sometime put out consistently good coverage

Your explanation is good and thorough.

I always struggle to know when to use the square brackets. The straightforward answer is to just quote directly where possible. But especially in interviews, someone’s answer may be jumbly, so the most honourable thing to do may be to use square brackets to make it easier for the reader to understand the speaker’s point, but you’re not being misleading.

For example, maybe this interviewee said something like “in the future, it — we might come to see that game development, and games overall, will end up turning out to be player-driven”, which could be straightforwardly shortened to what we see in the screenshot: “in the future, it [will be] player driven”. Square brackets, in the hands of a skilled journalist, can be used to manipulate a narrative through selectively quoting people, but they can also represent a speaker’s point far more authentically and cogently than the literal words.

"in the future, it will be player-driven