It’s important to post these things every so often. There will never be a day when everyone already knows. :)

https://xkcd.com/1053/

It’s a bit of a leap to say the “owner” changed. Ryujinx is MIT licensed, allowing anyone to clone the original code locally, build upon it, and publish it to a public host. Looks to me like that’s what happened here: a fork, but without using github’s built-in “fork” feature, perhaps to avoid being included in a mass take-down. There are others on non-github sites, although I don’t know if they have been getting new commits.

I don’t see any reason to think the original repo was renamed or moved to another user’s account. The top contributor is gdkchan presumably because gdkchan’s commit history was preserved.

For the record, gdkchan’s last commit to the original repo was on 2024-10-01.

Edit: The README confirms what I thought:

This fork is intended to be a QoL uplift for existing Ryujinx users. This is not a Ryujinx revival project.

Beware online “filter bubbles” (2011) - Eli Pariser

https://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles

Don’t assume too much from the headline, folks. They’re not saying everything has to be rewritten by 2026. They’re saying new product lines serving critical infrastructure should be written in memory-safe languages, and existing ones should have a memory safety roadmap.

If you’re about to post about how you think that’s unreasonable, I think you should explain why.

You could always test the waters by writing up a few of your workarounds in Lemmy posts, and seeing how much interaction they draw. If they’re well-received, the effort of building and maintaining a blog might be worthwhile.

Ah, so it is. I wonder when that happened. I guess .world might have outgrown beehaw’s ability to make up for spotty moderation.

I’m pretty sure they don’t block sdf. That’s where I am, and I’ve had several interactions with Beehaw folks while here. :)

Fun fact: Beehaw and sdf are among the few well-known instances that don’t hand their users’ traffic (all their activity on Lemmy) over to Cloudflare.

I know by having seen it discussed in one or two beehaw communities, but you can look it up here:

https://beehaw.org/instances

One of those is dead.

One is blocked by OP’s instance.

One is hosted on an instance that more than a few people avoid.

One is nearly empty, but maybe worth joining and starting some discussion? [email protected]

Your account info says you joined Lemmy a couple of years ago. Could that have something to do with it? Could be that there are simply fewer of us here than wherever you were before.

Also, if Reddit is one of your haunts, keep in mind that a lot of communities there partially dispersed a little over a year ago, and not everyone has reappeared in the same place (or at all).

The argument against it is founded on copyright.

We fund copyright in order to enrich our culture, by incentivizing creative works.

Blocking creative works preservation strips away the cultural enrichment.

What’s left? People being compelled through taxes to fund profit police for copyright holders who aren’t holding up their end of the bargain.

Edit: Note also that publishers and their lobby groups are not artists. They are parasites. They are paid more than fairly for their role in getting creative works out there in the first place. I can’t think of any reason why they should have continued control after they’ve stopped publishing them.

Technologies accelerate all sorts of agendas, but to blame this long-standing problem specifically on tech companies is to misunderstand the problem. Corporations shouldn’t have been allowed much influence on governance in the first place, no matter what their tools or line of business might be.

Instead of pointing fingers, how about we stop allowing corporate political donations and lobbyists in democracies, and put some real enforcement behind anti-corruption and bribery laws?

Unfortunately, I don’t think D is good enough to prove your point. From your follow-up comment:

A language that for all intents and purposes is irrelevant despite being exactly what everyone wanted,

As someone who uses D, I can attest that it is not what everyone wanted; at least not yet. Despite all the great things in the language, the ergonomics around actually using it are mediocre at best: Several of its appealing features quickly turn it into a noisy language, error messages are often so obtuse as to be useless (especially with templates and contracts in play), and Phobos (the standard library) is practically made of paper cuts. Also, the only notable async support is a fragile mess, and garbage collection is too deeply embedded into both the stdlib and the ecosystem.

(To be fair, D could be vastly improved with better defaults and standard library. That might happen in time, as Walter and the other maintainers have shown interest, but it’s just wishful thinking for now.)

Also, D is an entirely different language from C++, and as such, would require code rewrites in order to bring safety to existing projects. It’s not really comparable to a C++ extension.

Is this going to be re-posted every month?

That was a different community.

Also: https://xkcd.com/1053/

Given how long and widely C++ has been a dominant language, I don’t think anyone can reasonably expect to get rid of all the unsafe code, regardless of approach. There is a lot of it.

However, changing the proposition from “get good at Rust and rewrite these projects from scratch” to “adopt some incremental changes using the existing tooling and skills you already have” would lower the barrier to entry considerably. I think this more practical approach would be likely to reach far more projects.

I’ve never played arid shrublands, so the cooking problem described here got me curious. Would moving the kitchen outdoors under a roof keep a cook in cool clothing from passing out?

Echoing what others have said, I think temperate forest would be much better for a relaxed game. Lots of resources, easy weather.

https://www.cgmagonline.com/news/steam-purchase-license-california-law/

https://digitaldemocracy.calmatters.org/bills/ca_202320240ab2426

The Last of Us Part I.

I generally dislike games on rails, but I loved this one.

I read his message. He didn’t seem grumpy or frustrated to me; just encouraging folks to use a certain style that’s already in wide use, for reduced noise and better consistency.

as said in computer science it has accepted by most people (for the sake of having categories) that CPU emulation is emulation, and otherwise its not.

It’s important to keep in mind that things said in computer science for the sake of having categories are usually said within the very narrow implicit context of a particular field of study, like microprocessor design. It makes sense there for the sake of brevity, just as arcane acronyms make sense when everyone in the room understands what they stand for in that context. But the context no longer applies when we’re out in the rest of the world using a word that is not so narrowly defined, as we are now.

I think we mostly agree, because you pointed this out yourself:

It’s a “domain specific” language; which means, you have to specify it before in order to make use.

However, I want to clarify my position in response to this:

nobody has the right to act like having a clear definition and saying anyone else is wrong.

I often encounter people on social media chiding or mocking others for referring to Wine as an emulator, which is disheartening for a number of reasons. Importantly, the people reading such comments are being taught that it’s wrong to call Wine an emulator, when in fact it is not wrong at all. Wine’s very purpose is to emulate. This is plainly visible not just in how it is used, but also in how it is developed (many of its behaviors are reverse engineered Windows behaviors, departing from the API docs) and how it functions (it does a heck of a lot more than translating system calls).

The Wine project’s FAQ acknowledges the misunderstanding, a bit indirectly, by pointing out that it is “more than just an emulator”.

Unfortunately, since most people in the discussions I mentioned have no visibility into Wine’s internals, they don’t know any better than to accept what they were told by multiple people on the internet. They are misled by a smug few who love to tell others they’re wrong by repeating that officially abandoned slogan that was never really true (at least not in the context that framed it) in the first place. And then some of the misled people adopt it themselves, so we end up with more of the “you’re wrong” attitude, perpetuation of a ridiculously narrow understanding of the word, and people who publish about the topic performing awkward linguistic gymnastics to avoid simply saying “emulator” for fear of rebuke.

I think all three of those results make the world a little worse, so I’m here to let everyone reading know that it’s perfectly appropriate to call Wine (or Proton) an emulator. Anyone who claims it’s wrong to do so is perhaps a hardware field specialist who has lost sight of the importance of context in language, or (more likely) either honestly mistaken or an internet troll.