The article is very light on any technical details, so it’s hard to tell if this is a big deal, someone misunderstanding the hypervisor method that’s exploded this year, or just click bait. I’m going to assume click bait.

Edit: the Lemmy.world post had a comment that explains this better than the article:

… An important point though: hypervisor cracks were available exclusively for Windows.

Or at least that was the case until the “Linux breakthrough” was revealed yesterday, which gives Linux the ability to run Hypervisor cracks, and with modern CPUs, you can run the hypervisor cracks without even using a hypervisor.

Support for Linux has to be implemented in the cracks themselves too, though I did read that DenuvOwO (de facto THE hypervisor cracking team) is backporting support to all previous releases :D.

Of course nothing beats actual cracks but then again hypervisor cracks weren’t support to replace them, they’re supposed to ruin denuvo’s reputation by making games pirateable on day 1 of releasing. This will have a bigger effect now that the cracks are with tinkerers (Linux users) who wouldn’t mind a little setting-up to play their games.

It’s tightly interconnected with accessibility because alternative input systems, like eye gaze input, macros to expand text, and other accessibility tools for alternative input hardware all friends in the same types of window-agnostic input interacting. (Similarly for output hardware, I think?)

Like, custom text replacement with XCompose breaks because of how Wayland “silos” programs, which is why ~/.XCompose files only partially work in KDE Plasma. If Wayland/KDE fully implemented accessibility tools, then it would be possible to solve all of these problems.

Or, at least, that’s my layman’s understanding of the situation.

There was a fantastic blog post about accessibility problems with Wayland, but I think Wayland is upstream of KDE, isn’t it?

In other words, do you know if what you’re suggesting within scope, or is it upstream? Or maybe it’s both, and KDE and Wayland both need changes to enable proper accessibility?

I don’t know enough, but I’ll see if I can track down that blog post and post about accessibility. Worst case, it lets KDE devs know that accessibility with KDE/Wayland is a major issue for many users.

Edit: I found the post: My Accessibility Stack and the future on Wayland

CachyOS has been great for me, as a “just works” Arch-based distro that also has freedom to install just about anything (great CachyOS & Arch repos, AUR, podman/Docker, Wine pre-configured, etc.)

I can’t speak to EndeavourOS since I never got past CachyOS working perfectly for me.

What makes you think the text is AI image gen? Or do you think the text is LLM generated? I’m deeply confused by your comment.

I hope this doesn’t come off as callous:

What an epic mic drop of your father’s. That’s like something out of a novel/film.

He sounds like a super hoopy frood. Sorry for your loss.

Sure, but that’s not what this is about. This isn’t just banning AI-written code, it’s banning AI-assisted code. If you even use a Google Gemini “AI-summary” at the top of your search results for something simple like the name of a function, then your code is AI-assisted.

There’s no way anyone can detect that. And banning it is silly.

But the point is, imho, that if nobody can tell if it’s AI-assisted, then who cares? This is more for them to fire a warning shot that you’d better be sure your AI-assisted code is good enough to pass, or they can reject or and, potentially, ban you without notice.

But then why is it still free on Windows? Remove the basic tier entirely, then.

Especially if you’re correct that is a server/client system, then someone will just soon up a Docker container that has all of Windows 11 LTE and the Windows version of this pre-configured, so people can continue to use it in Linux anyway, or switch to an open-source alternative. They’re already supporting and releasing Linux builds, so this doesn’t seem to gain them anything and, instead, may cost them marketshare and goodwill.

I’m confused.

Right, like what’s the ROI of a million computers switching from US-based for-profit Windows to Linux?

Funding open tools/tech/research is exactly the sort of thing that governments are best equipped to do, relative to private sector/individuals. Millions of dollars is a rounding error relative to government licensing costs to proprietary software alone, even ignoring the downstream benefits for the rest of the economy. And if we had lots of money in open software, it would attract a lot more talent to make it even better for the rest of us.

The Mozilla numbers are wildly inflated. They were effectively just advertising for Anthropic’s mediocre LLM with that blog post.

I think that the core idea, that Ubuntu is taking risks, shipping an LTS with major changes, is concerning. New core utils that don’t have feature parity, pipewire as a snap, a single-digit-days-old kernel (which has major changes to scheduling that cause known major regressions with some major software until they get updated), a new sudo implementation that may not be as secure (?), etc. Plus, jumping the hardware req to 6 GB and removing a GUI app for non-snap apps…

Just more evidence that Ubuntu isn’t a good recommendation anymore.

I’d go a step further, and say it’s a bad idea to recommend any Ubuntu-based distros. Yes, that means Mint.

I don’t have time to get into the full 13 (? iirc) steps of Liljedahl’s Thinking Classrooms approach, but it’s exactly designed to meet the needs of students like you. Some highlights:

• Students are randomly assigned to a new group of 3 daily
• All students work on vertical whiteboards, or equivalents
• The teacher presents a math task that starts easy-ish, but requires some work/thought to figure out
• If 30% of students in the room understand the task, then it will quickly trickle between groups
• The teacher circles exemplars of great thinking; students are not allowed to erase these until the next debrief
• The teacher regularly cycles back to get students to explain their work to the class, showcasing and explaining the bits the teacher circled
• Start over with a more advanced task/“next step”

It’s an incredibly effective teaching method for secondary math. And there’s clear motivation every step of the way for what you’re doing and why it matters.

And the teacher only explains about 5-10% of the material; everything else is explained by the students as the carefully curated progression of activities guides them through discovering the math themselves.

Yes, examples like that are good, of course. But, frankly, abstract examples like that won’t do much to motivate the students who need the most help to get motivated learning math.

I like to interject little anecdotes like that, too. One of my “go tos” to “why are quadratics useful” goes something like “Well, they come up a fair bit, so I could give you some examples—and I will, as we with through the unit, but the real reason we teach quadratics is because they’re the simplest non-linear function. This is the first steps into looking at functions that aren’t a straight line. And the tools you use to work with quadratics are super important for understanding all the really cool functions you get to learn on the next couple of years…”

That’s basically your example, but one step lower and more directly applicable to students, imho. The Taylor Series thing I usually only drop in grade 11/12 (pre)calculus classes, mostly as a hook for the math nerds that they have really cool things to look forward to learning in post secondary. It’s a terrible application to use to try to motivate learning about polynomials for a student who couldn’t care less, lol.

Really, we need to intermix all approaches, depending on the students in the class. At private prep schools, leaning into academic needs works well. In a non-academic math stream, both your example and my examples will go over like a lead balloon.

But, regardless, motivating students to be excited for math, and the excitement of finally figuring out a tricky concept/problem? That’s what we need more of.

If by “practical application” you mean “motivation for learning the skill”, which is I think the way you’re using it, then yes. But that’s not the usual definition in math education, and not what most people mean by it.

Like, for example, to introduce quadratics, a good progression might be to challenge students to build a table of values and graphs for x², then x² + 3, then graph x² – 5 without a table of values, then 2x² vs. 5x² vs. ½x², –x², etc.

And if you have a Thinking Classroom, every student in the class is working on figuring out that progression collaboratively in small groups. The teacher guides students to discover the math themselves through a series of examples, and mostly interacts with the students by asking questions, never giving them the answers.

That’s not “a practical application of quadratics”—at least not in the usual definition—that’s a learning activity sequence (paired with a set of interrelated pedagogical practices).

A good, practical application of quadratics is more like a Dan Meyer “3 Act Math” lesson on predicting the trajectory of a basketball shot. Also cool, good teaching. But not a great way to introduce quadratics.

(P.S. Yes, I use and like em dashes. I’m not a robot.)

Citation needed.

Seriously, though, that’s not what the research is showing. Peter Liljedahl’s research, for example, supports that a very effective way to teach mathematics is by having students actually think about math, instead of just passively receiving info dumps (as is common in most traditional math classes). See Building Thinking Classrooms for details but, in short, it’s a method of getting students playing with math concepts for almost the entire class time every day.

No “practical applications” needed. Counterintuitive, but it’s a highly effective practice.

What’s core to practical applications working is student motivation, and practical applications are one way to induce motivation. But it’s often not the best option, especially for inherently abstract skills.

That kinda breaks down in practice, though. Math is hard for a lot of students. Adding an extra layer of domain-specific application on top of an already confusing topic just makes it worse.

Like, we need polynomials for huge swathes of higher-level math. My favourite application of polynomials is that most continuous functions can be approximated by a Taylor series, which makes some functions that are otherwise impossible to calculate a derivative or integral trivially easy. It’s elegant, beautiful, and deeply practical.

And completely useless for a grade 8 student learning about polynomials for the first time.

Sure, there’s lower-hanging fruit for practical uses for polynomials, but they’re either similarly abstract (albeit simpler) or contrived. Ain’t nobody making a sandbox with length (3x + 5) and width (2x – 7), eh?

I could go on. At length.

Point being, yes, practical applications are better. BUT (and this is a big but) only when there are simple practical applications.

Instead, recent math education research supports teaching fluency through playing with math concepts and exploring things in many ways: symbolically, graphically, forwards and backwards, extending iteratively with increasing complexity, etc. This helps students develop intuition for math concepts and deeper understanding. Then, and only then, teach the standard algorithms and methods, as students will appreciate the efficiency of the tool and understand what they’re doing and why they’re doing it.

Thank you for listening to my TED Talk.

This argument fundamentally misunderstands AI and copyright.

Straight dumps of AI output can’t be copyrighted, but as soon as it’s modified by a human in nontrivial ways, it’s copyrightable again. If open source projects are using straight dumps of AI output without modifications, then the project will be irrelevant before copyright matters, lol.

Not if you’re running an Arch-based distro, like CachyOS. Between CachyOS’s Hello app and Octopi, it just works.

Granted, I do use the terminal, but that’s because I’m a tinkerer and I want to do unusual things, not just web + games + office suite. For most users, they never need to see the terminal, aside from hitting “q” and “y” when they install or update things a few times.

OctoPi is included by default for a GUI app, iirc.

In recent history, it’s every 20 versions, iirc: 5.19, 6.0, … , 6.19, 7.0