It's product specific rather than brand specific, I suggest looking around on various subreddits like r/MouseReview or r/mechanicalkeyboards for example.
If you haven’t tried it, I highly recommend Mise. It manages everything at the user level so it’s not as “all encompassing” as Nix and is readily compatible with immutable distros.
Your solution is akin to putting your dotfiles in the code repo, which is going to cause issues with languages with poor version compatibility (such as node and python) when switching between old projects.
Also, bold of you to assume developers know make and bash just because they’re using Linux!
I cannot endorse mise more highly. I commit it to my repos to make sure every engineer has the same environment. I use it in CI for consistency there as well. I keep all commands that would normally be documented in a readme as mise tasks. I use mise to load the environment, independent of language specific tools like dotenv. I use a gitignored mise.local to put real creds into the environment for testing.
Question about Mise: Does it manage checksums or a lock file per environment somewhere? I scrolled through the getting started page and didn't see anything at first glance.
https://github.com/mise-plugins <-- First they say "Try to get your tool into aqua or see if it can be installed with the github backend, then it may be added to the mise registry", and then later they say "The rest of this doc is outdated and does not reflect the current state of preferring aqua/ubi.".
Overall there's too many ways to install things and it's not easy to add any of them. Asdf plugins were easy, but insecure (which could be fixed, but whatever). Everything else requires more research because it's more technical.
Only if they have a plugin that describes how to install them. Many popular tools are much more complex to install and set up than just downloading a binary and making it executable. For those you need to create a plugin for mise to be able to install them. Luckily, very often some other generous person has gone through all the trouble of learning how to make the plugin, going to the official repos, making a PR, and finally getting it merged. But if somebody hasn't done that already, it's painful (more painful than, say, an asdf plugin). It depends on the language, on the tool and system requirements, etc. Overall it's kind of a mess. Mise leaves you with the trouble of figuring all that out, rather than making some kind of convenience function to get the process started easily.
> Many popular tools are much more complex to install
I'm curious which dev tools you're using aren't installable with standard mise backends. 99% of dev tools I use don't require a plugin.
> (more painful than, say, an asdf plugin)
You can still use asdf plugins, I could use mise to install an asdf plugin right now with one line `mise use asdf:raimon49/asdf-hurl`. The mise registry is just a convenient list of aliases, even if it doesn't accept new asdf plugins, you don't need it to.
As Larry Wall said "make easy things easy and hard things possible"
I work for a big international corp. We pay IBM a blankest sum annually because it’s that hard to quantify just how much we rely on their services and licensing costs.
Licensing of course just being typical rent seeking behaviour but their services are valuable given the financial impact if one of their solutions goes down on us (which is very rarely)
I’m daily driver Linux now after three decades of Windows usage. I have Bazzite-dx (Fedora based) on my desktop and Cachy (Arch based) on my laptop, both using KDE Plasma for the GUI.
I can’t place my finger on it, but Bazzite feels more “coherent” despite using the exact same GUI.
I had the misfortune of using a Windows 11 machine the other day and I didn’t even recognise it. They’ve taken a huge misstep with the Copilot rollout.
This is a logical conclusion of most open source tools in a capitalist economy, it's been this way for decades.
Equivalent or better tools will pop up eventually, heck if AI is so fantastic then you could just make one of your own, be the change you want to see in the world, right?
Luckily debt will be solved by the power of AGI, right? Just one more data centre! One more GPU! It can nearly write a basic three tier application with only 10 critical security vulnerabilities all by itself!
Definitely think we’re in for a rough year financial prospects wise, and doesn’t even feel like we recovered from the 2008 crash properly.
Luckily debt will be solved by the power of AGI, right? Just one more data centre! One more GPU! It can nearly write a basic three tier application with only 10 critical security vulnerabilities all by itself!
If you read the article, it says the default is directly related to the sell off of software stocks, which are heavy private credit borrowers.
What caused the SaaS apocalypse? Gen AI.
I'm long on AI hardware companies for this reason.
Hundreds of financial institutions with greater or lesser responsibility for the crash in 2008 went under in those years[0]. The shareholders in almost all of these companies lost all of their money and the responsible employees lost their jobs. This includes some of the most guilty companies, like Washington Mutual, Countrywide Financial, IndyMac, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch (through First Franklin Financial), Bear Stearns. But all these companies are completely forgotten now.
Instead everyone hates on Goldman Sachs. Sure, Goldman Sachs deserves hate, but of the big banks they were the _least_ guilty of the crash in 2008. Not saying they were saints, but in 2008 they were the least bad.
When you have people at the top of those institutions who made those decisions, and made enough money during their tenures to weather any length of unemployment and were sometimes even given a severance worth more money than the average American makes in a lifetime, going out of business or losing a job simply isn't enough.
It's one of the only investments of labor and time where the risk is not proportional to the return.
In order to create risk, you have to either claw back their money through civil action - which you can't because the entire point of incorporation is to separate the business entity from one's personal finances - or look at criminal charges. Otherwise, you have created a class of hyper-wealthy people who have no real incentive to perform in a way that is for the best interests of shareholders or society at large.
It's the reason we tie so much for regular people to employment in the US, like healthcare. Many argue that if you give the rank-and-file worker the kind of long-term financial security that just one or two years of being a C-suite executive at a major company, they won't work as hard. They won't make the best decisions. They won't be the dynamic workers our economy supposedly wants. That logic goes right out the window when a board goes hunting for a new CEO.
>The shareholders in almost all of these companies lost all of their money
How is that penalizing those responsible?
Isn't it a pretty big leap to go from penalizing those selling packaged fraudulent loans to the public (whom, to my knowledge were never prosecuted) to the shareholders losing money as protection against it happening again?
The shareholders are responsible for the management of the company who are in turn responsible for their employees. By wiping out the shareholders in these companies hopefully other shareholders in other financial companies will demand more oversight. In the end people respond to incentives and the individual employees that sold the fraudulent loans were implicitly or explicitly incentivized to do so by management, who were in turn rewarded for this by shareholders. Going after the specific employees that sold the loans is of course morally satisfying, but if we want this to not happen again we need to make shareholders and executives keen to avoid a repeat. Looking at how popular Klarna, gambling companies and now private credit has been with investors, it doesn't seem to have worked, unfortunately.
But, yes, it is a travesty that more of the subprime loan salesmen weren't prosecuted. It has a lot of value for a society to actually convict people that have done actual wrong. We all want to live in a just world and seeing that people who have done wrong get what they deserve is part of that. Looking at the US from the outside I think a lot of the polarization we've seen in the US over the past 15 years could have been avoided if more prosecutions had happened in 2008-2012.
IMO this is also why big companies being allowed to do settlements without admissions of wrongdoing is so bad. They fail to fulfill the moral purpose of law enforcement. Ironically Goldman Sachs _did_ admit wrongdoing in their settlement with the SEC over their Abacus CDFs...
The problem is, shareholding is now so abstracted as to make actual corrective action incredibly unlikely.
If you have investments, go and look what your holdings are. There's a real chance you have some sort managed portfolio that will trade equities to maintain growth. It might be algorithmically-driven. Your holdings may very well temporarily include some companies that you don't approve of, but trading happens so fast and so often that you're not going to be able to keep up on what you actually own.
That's because debt IS money. Literally. If you create debt, you have created wealth. These people weren't punished so they could get back to creating new debt as quickly as possible.
The problem with credit defaults, especially private credit defaults, isn't that some private creditors lose some money, it's that twice that amount of money is destroyed, and disappears from the economy entirely.
In fact we rewarded them. We bailed them out by printing a lot of money. We then printed more money during the pandemic to pay people to stay home and watch Netflix. Probably a lot more examples. All that money flowing around that has no basis in actual productivity or value created. It's got to correct at some point. One of the corrections is how much more everything costs now, but I don't think that has fully absorbed the excess.
Exact opposite. We are in the midst of the COVID hangover.
So that govt money went to the wealthy to buy up houses (Californians bought real estate in the Midwest as investments and it drove up housing prices along with small immigration to these states)
Farmers etc benefited from bailouts when they were doing very well. It was a large blunder.
All that money directly led to housing inflation that still hasn't settled. The PPP loans were all forgiven (which massively favored business owners and upper class).
Meanwhile student loan forgiveness was overruled by the supreme court.
It's really hard to ignore the implication that it ended up being more like a wealth transfer than anything else.
It was inflationary but would spread out the pain over the recovery period after the crisis, the other option was to allow 100% of the pain to be felt immediately: economy shutting down, people losing their jobs, diminished household spending, less money circulating in the economy, businesses still running having fewer orders/customers, more people being laid off, all the way until the crisis passed.
Between the latter and the former I believe the former was a much smarter choice in the medium to long term.
We did. We created about $4 trillion. That just about neutralized the $4 trillion that evaporated in the crash, and the result was that we did not go through a deflationary collapse. You know that they did not create too much, because inflation was basically nothing for the next decade. It was flat until Covid.
Thanks, that was a perspective I hadn't thought about. But still doesn't seem like that taught any lessons, other than the taxpayers will bail out our carelessness.
I think it was a good call, yes. A deflationary collapse is incredibly damaging to the economy. The Great Depression was such a collapse, but there are others. The Panic of 1857, 1873, 1907... there's a long history of these.
The Fed avoided that. And they also avoided causing inflation. It was an amazing job of threading the needle. (One could argue that they caused a decade of stagnation, but in my view that was minor compared to the other options.)
I have really tried hard to figure out the counterfactual as being a good thing and it is just really hard to make the argument that we would have been better off with a deflationary collapse.
This is especially true from a global perspective. It would be a much more equal global economy but unimaginably poorer. The political consequences are unknowable but a deflationary collapse would not have had good political outcomes.
We largely shifted a nightmare into being a great time to be alive but take the good times completely for granted because we can't really know the nightmare we didn't see.
Thank you for the thoughts. Do you think if we had ripped the band-aid off then it would have been completely disastrous? I don't mind saying that this economy is frustrating, and it feels like we keep kicking the can down the road. I'm confident I'm not the only person that feels this way, and I'm quite open to being wrong here. My guts says there's just too much money sloshing around, and it gets vacuumed up, leaving the majority feeling like nothing changed.
I'm asking this in as non-confrontational way as possible, what am I missing?
I think you may be missing that $4 trillion evaporated in 2008, and the scale of the catastrophe that would have caused if the Fed did nothing. What the Fed did then was, essentially, restore the amount of money to what it was in 2007. They were trying to turn 2008 into as much of a "nothing changed" as they could, and they did it quite well.
I think the economy can adjust to any amount of money; it's the abrupt change in the amount that causes problems (because it causes an abrupt change in the value of money).
I think you may be missing that I'm not saying the same thing about the pandemic response. I think that too much money got poured in during the pandemic years, and that has caused inflation, and we've been seeing that inflation since. I wonder if you are taking how you feel about the last five or six years, and mapping that onto the last 18 years.
Now, from 2008 to 2020 was not all roses. Things were kind of stagnant. The rich were probably doing better than you were, because assets like stocks and land went up in value as interest rates went down, but your wages didn't go up. So, it was reasonable for you to feel "there's too much money sloshing around" in things like stocks during those years.
But I think it got worse after Covid. The government air-dropped too much money in, and there has definitely been too much money sloshing around since then.
In all of this, I'm not really saying that you're wrong in feeling that there's too much money sloshing around, or that the economy is frustrating.
Consequences would be nice, but actually forbidding it for the future would be enough. Obama promised to do it, but didn't, and everybody kind of forgot and moved on.
We sure did when Frank-Dodd was written by the legislative and then signed into law by the executive.
GP's comment is about the aftermath of 2008, entirely missing the fact that the legislative did in fact create laws which were signed by the executive and then later, in 2018, dismantled under a different administration.
I mean people have been saying a crash is coming for years... Consumers recklessly purchased homes and cars at double their value, while relocating for remote work that was never long term in the eyes of their employer. Sounds like a receipt for disaster or a repeat of 2008- however, so much has changed since 2008... whatever happens, Black Swan! Hope "you" have your ducks in a row... As for AGI, lol. A box of matmuls isnt going to solve any real problems, so far, as you point out- is can barely write software. LLMs are basically gifted children. Smart sounding, lacking wisdom, chaotic, and likely just going to end up not that impressive. Either way- before we ever see AGI, we better get our heads out of the holes of the wealthy and enact UBI...
They do not in fact do it just fine. That's why it's utterly laughable to suggest that they can lead to AGI. They can't even do the one thing they are supposed to be good at, even after years of effort.
I didn't say anything about AGI, nor will I except to say it's an incoherent quasi-religious topic that has next to no engineering relevance, at the very least until somebody can empirically test for it. Stop coping.
Had the same crisis - I split from my long term partner after 14 years at 33 years old. Was happy to be alone for the first time in my life then within two weeks the dread of loneliness started creeping in.
My advice is find a social outlet - Group exercise like CrossFit and Run Clubs help a lot and cater to all people.
Also - restarting your life alone is expensive, but you will never again have a cheaper cost of living. Take the opportunity to save so you can let the good times roll when you find someone.
Also also - I had zero luck on dating apps, I think their prime days are over, and they’re superficial. Don’t bother with that negative feedback loop.
You are born out of another human but even they can never understand you fully, they can never experience you fully, they can never know you fully. The problems of parents and kids are all coming from that and are old as time. If even parents can't do that there is no chance with other people.
This is the trick of the universe, or a trade-off if you will: being completely alone also means being completely free in terms of internal experience. If you realise that - that is the greatest gift, if you are unaware it can feel like a curse.
I don't think so. Solipsism is not being sure about what exists outside of mind.
I'm saying that others can't understand you fully, not just the mind but whole combination of memory, emotions, experiences, etc. Therefore being alone is not different from being surrounded by other people, I'm not saying they don't exist or anything like that.
Much like LLM output, this seems convincing at first glance but it’s stating assumption as fact; That assumption being “when LLMs get better”. They don’t say what that ceiling is, but then go on to say “it can’t represent someone in court”. Why not? It can reason about more law and precedent than any human can right? As a society surely we want a fair and by the book justice system?
Look at GPT 5.4 and Opus, we’re clearly hitting diminishing returns already and these guys are pumping unsustainable amounts of money into them.
I’m bullish on AI, it’s been a net positive for me and my team. All I see here though is propaganda disguised as science to convince businesses to shrink their engineering budgets and redirect it to AI companies.
reply