Are there no-mouse alternatives? I hate drawing lines and boxes using mouse and I wish there was a way to write the "structure" and have it generate the ASCII art for that.
graph-easy? It doesn't give you a lot of control though
Readit NewsPhilipRoman commented on ASCIIFlow asciiflow.com/... · Posted by u/marcodiego
PhilipRoman commented on Object-oriented design patterns in C and kernel development oshub.org/projects/retros... · Posted by u/joexbayer
Note that you only need to cast for an upcast. To access the first member, you wouldn't need to cast.
It would be nice though, if syntax like the following would be supported:
struct A
{
int a;
};
struct B
{
int b;
struct A a;
};
void foo (struct A * a)
{
struct B * b;
&b->a = pa;
}
struct B b;
foo (&b.a);Yeah you're right, I meant the other way around. Also another loosely related idea is the container_of macro in Linux kernel.
PhilipRoman commented on Object-oriented design patterns in C and kernel development oshub.org/projects/retros... · Posted by u/joexbayer
Note that this is using interfaces (i.e. vtables, records of function pointers), not full object-orientation. Other OO features, like classes and inheritance, have much more baggage, and are often not worth the associated pain.
Field inheritance is surprisingly natural in C, where a struct can be cast to it's first member.
Deleted Comment
As much as I like the idea of miniPCs my biggest issue is that almost everything in miniPCs are soldered down, if you could replace the RAM/CPU/Storage I'd have zero with them. But for now, I'm skeptical in that the current push for miniPCs are a clandestine way to get more technical people onboard with unrepairable devices.
Weird, every mini PC I've used has had normal SODIMM slots and removable SSD. CPU is mostly soldered though.
PhilipRoman commented on The issue of anti-cheat on Linux (2024) tulach.cc/the-issue-of-an... · Posted by u/todsacerdoti
I feel like the only other solution to kernel-level anticheat is some kind of measured and verified system image. The whole chain has to be signed and trusted from the TPM through the kernel to userspace. This way if anyone tampers with the system the game will refuse to launch. I think something like this is already possible with systemd or is at least the long term goal IIRC from Lennart's blog.
IME these systems can be quite fragile in practice. All it takes is one pre-signature exploit (like U-boot parsing ext4 and devicetree before verifying signature) and your whole chain becomes useless.
And while the kernel is quite secure against hacks from userspace, the hardware interfaces are generally more trusted. This is not a problem on smartphones or embedded devices where you can obfuscate everything on a small SoC but the whole PC/x86_64 platform is much more flexible and open. I doubt there is a way to get reliable attestation on current desktop systems (many of which are assembled from independent parts) unless you get complete buy-in from all the manufacturers.
Finally, with AI systems recently increasing in power, perhaps soon the nuclear option of camera + CV + keyboard/mouse will become practical.
Not my favoured approach, but for early stage systems where proper off-board observability/alerting is not yet in place, tmux can function as a kind of ssh-accessible dashboard displaying the stdout of key running processes, and also allowing some measure of inline recovery— like if a process has crashed, you can up-arrow and relaunch it in the same environment it crashed out of.
Obviously not an approach that scales, but I think it can also work decently well as a dev environment, where you want to run "stock" for most of the components in the system, and just be syncing in an updated workspace and restarting the one bit being actively developed on. Being able to do this without having to reason about a whole tree of interlinked startup units or whatever does lower the barrier to entry somewhat.
One advantage is that if the process has some sort of console on it's stdin, you can do admin work easily. With init systems you now have to configure named pipes, worry about them blocking, have output in separate place, etc.
I have never experienced a faster checkout with self checkout.
If it's super fast, it's just for a few items, and a cashier would've been just as fast. If it's for a lot of items, there's a decent chance I have to look up some codes or something; which a cashier is better and faster at.
The trade off of self checkout is cost savings for the business. These savings are not passed on to me. Therefore, I don't give a flying rat's ass about them.
I'm with OP. If I'm working for the business, they will compensate me. Willingly or unwillingly.
IME it's faster because the queue is shorter. You can fit about 2.5 self checkout machines in the same space, enabling more people to checkout in parallel.
Deleted Comment
PhilipRoman commented on MCP doesn't need tools, it needs code lucumr.pocoo.org/2025/8/1... · Posted by u/the_mitsuhiko
Can't wait until I can buy a H100 with a DisplayPort input and USB keyboard and mouse output and just let it figure everything out.