Yeah, because no third party program has ever crashed on any other OS.
Come on, this is an absurd comment. Linux has its issues, this is not a serious example of what is keeping normal people from using Linux as a desktop OS. Normal people are not installing the first release of a privacy networking tool that requires you to OK connections.
99,9% of the time, you download an exe or a DMG, you can be pretty sure it's going to work. Even 3 star github repo.
Only on Linux you get weird bug, compilation issues, etc.
After all, you have windows, macos and then you have Linux : debian, Ubuntu, fedora, arch, opensuse. That's almost like 5 different os just for Linux.
Sure you can use flatpack and force people to download 2gb installation for something that requires 20mb on windows and macos. That excludes all of the people who don't have fiber internet.
At this point I'm convinced that those developing Linux don't want it to be an os for casuals and prefer to stay in their small, niche community. That's fine by me but it makes claim of Linux desktop year laughable, which I was referring to.
The take on flatpaks is such an uninformed one. DMGs on MacOS come with all the dependencies bundled in, which make them essentially just as big as the comparable flatpak (minus the shared runtime that gets installed once)
Seriously, the amount flatpak misinformation that people hold onto is absolutely wild. Ex: I have had to show people it does differential updates because they don't bother to read the output.
Flatpaks are easily the best gui desktop app experience for users we have today.
That's not the user experience though, the user experience is it says "go to the discover app and install <program>" and they do that and it just works. Downloading a tarball is not the normal way to install stuff on Linux, and given everyone has phones where the standard is "install on the app store", it's hardly some new experience, in fact, it's more natural for normal users.
I can't figure out what was even USA goal in this war ? they have said everything and it's contrary, so there is no way to know if they won or if they lost. I guess it's a smart move.
But on the other hand,
Iran still has enriched uranium, nuclear facilities and now they even have put in the agreement a recognition of Iran's right to seek nuclear technology.
Iran missiles.. they still shoot them and there is nothing to prevent them to build more. They are going to get a big cash-flow with that control of the Detroit, recognized in the 10 point agreement.
Iran government has not been replaced. I'd say it's even stronger now that it 'won' the war (that's the way they're going to show it on national television) and they even asked to get UN sanctions lifted. That will bring them some legitimacy back.
What other usa war goal were proclaimed ?
I vaguely remember a national security thing where Iran was going to bomb America. I guess the war didn't prevent that because Iran did kill American soldiers and caused billions of $ in loss.
Iran goal on the other hand ?
Destroy the evil American ? They weren't going to anyway.
Survive ? I guess they did.
And now the population that was supporting their government is even more radicalized.
> Iran still has enriched uranium, nuclear facilities and now they even have put in the agreement a recognition of Iran's right to seek nuclear technology.
You can figure out the goal. What you can't figure out is a goal that actually had a snowball's chance in an oil fire of being achieved.
> Iran government has not been replaced. I'd say it's even stronger now that it 'won' the war (that's the way they're going to show it on national television) and they even asked to get UN sanctions lifted. That will bring them some legitimacy back.
That's the thing, winning depends on your goals.
Iran's goal was to survive as a country, and the autocratic theocracy that rules it to stay in charge. Not only it managed that so far, but it now effectively controls the flow of all exports going through the gulf. It is an actual victory.
US' goals were unclear. A lot was said. Regime change? Stop Iran's nuclear program? Stop its support to proxies in the region? Take Kharg Island? None of that was done. It was a deafeat.
Israel's goal is murder. It murdered a lot of people during this war. Double points for murdering children. I think Israel can also claim victory here.
Yeah, on second thought I think that the real winner is Israel.
After all, it's their war. American shouldn't even care and yet they got convinced to spend billions and billions on this war that will benefit mostly Israel.
And the greatest achievement ? Before you mention it in the comment, I even had forgotten that Israel was cobeligirent in that war. They go under the radar when they are those who actually reached their goal: kill, murder Iran official, destroy their infrastructures, 'lay down the grass' as they say.
And now they even invaded Lebanon while the world is happy because the Detroit is open again.
Exactly. People always focus on discussing whether the US is succeeding or failing, whether Iran will control the strait or not, and they forget that Israel is an active party there.
Meanwhile they are also invading Lebanon, and never abandoned the genocide against Palestinians. That "final solution" is still ongoing, but completely fell of the radar.
Insider trading. People surrounding Trump like when he does crazy stuff that shifts markets, so they influence him to do so. And Trump is really easy to influence.
Exactly my point of view. Medications are like drugs, if we failed to forbid it we might as well allow it but regulate it, aka make seller accountable for the purity.
The author obviously lack maturity, is cocky and I guess we have every reason to hate him. University (from what he wrote) doesn't look bright either but it's India, it's kind of expected.
And winning athletes and sports teams don't go to the white house due to 'scheduling conflicts'. And Amazon paid $75m for a Melania documentary because they saw real profit and need there. And Qatar bought Trump an airplane because it was important for his work. And everyone nominates him for a nobel prize because he ends wars and doesn't get into wars (we're just in a special military operation atm).
Would it count as a "political reason" if their risk management calculations crossed a threshold where it's worth it to move the gold back? I imagine such calculations are done and revised all the time and account for the perceived stability and reliability of a country.
It appears that the gain mentioned is a realization of their asset value. I would also speculate that what happened is that they wanted LBMA bars because those are a standard variety and therefore easily tradable. An arbitrary LBMA bar is generally fungible. I would also speculate that they held many bars in the US from ancient times. After 2008, they repatriated 200-ish tonnes and 'upgraded' them (which I would speculate again is 'ensured they were LBMA-standard').
These articles all have the flavour of the game of telephone common in this style of article where the currency that the gain is in changes wording, the motivation seems to shift, and phrasing lacks real detail instead relying on 'upgrading' and 'refining'.
I wish there were a good LLM agent that were capable of tracing all this back to the real original source that spawned all these things, but the information environment is currently full of smoke and getting real news is quite hard.
I can't realistically conclude whether this was politically motivated or not. The original motivation is sufficiently strong on its own, but it is completely normal for governments to move something to be earlier, or to do a marginal thing if there is other gain.
They started the process in 2005 [1]. The goal has been to upgrade all their goal to modern purity standards (99.999% purity). The repatriation to France may have been done for national security reasons, but not political as in ideological.
> BdF Governor Francois Villeroy de Galhau said the decision to keep the new bars in Paris is “not politically motivated,” as the higher-standard gold bars it bought were traded on a European market.
To be fair, it's an ongoing process started in 2005 and which should finish in 2028. I doubt there was much political (tho the whole tariffs stuff probably made their job/decision easier when the gold price started diverging between NY and European markets). At this point it was cheaper than flying the gold to CH for recasting.
(1784 tons moved to standardized holding over the years, 134 tons are now left to convert -- all stored in Paris)
It's massively cheaper. Copilot charges per request, which with some clever prompting, can lead to huge amounts of work being done at fractions of the cost of Claude Code. Millions of tokens for mere pennies. MS must be taking a huge hit somewhere, because I'm probably getting 10-20x my value out of GH relative to CC.
I am not locked in to Anthropic, either. I can easily switch between GPT and Gemini models based on how I think each would perform in various scenarios. That's a big win. I use a lot of design with Opus, implement with GPT 5.4.
Also, Github Copilot CLI is pretty much at feature parity (for the stuff that matters) with Claude Code. Using both at work and home, I don't think there's much difference in features between the two. Maybe I'm not a super power user, and just a regular dumb user, but GH doesn't seem buggy and everything I think I'd want to do with CC I can do with GH.
I'm spending a literal fortune on CC - we also have GH Copilot but the devs imply that CC is better? Will the Github Copilot let us access skills and agent frameworks in CC?
Devs say a lot of uninformed things. With a heavy predisposition to hating the "legacy" monoliths that are Microsoft and by association GitHub.
Yes, Copilot supports skills. Practically all agents support very similar feature sets or are actively building up parity support if not already there. The only real difference between systems is the prompt and payment method. Copilot even allows you to use Anthropic's own skills repository: https://github.com/anthropics/skills
It's a bit rich to go around calling people uninformed because they prefer one harness to another, particularly when you are recommending GHC as comparable to CC.
IME is is less capable of performing complex work, more frequently goes down blind alleys and needs correcting, that kind of thing. It's night and day vs CC.
And this has been comparing like for like with CC - say Opus 4.6 on the same reasoning effort? Hasn’t been my experience particularly but fair enough. I do tend to use them in different situations (CC outside of work).
Even if it is close, maybe GHC CLI has improved in the last month since I last used it, I know you didn't say it but calling people uninformed because they prefer one or the other is just wrong.
I’d agree, though maybe there’s a more charitable reading of the OP - “uninformed” is one of those accusations that it’s rarely very polite or fair to level against an individual but sometimes is reasonable against a group based on observation. My experience would be that it’s true that “devs says lots of uninformed things” - and I’d include myself in that. It’s been my experience that it’s particularly tough in this space at this time because:
1. Tooling is changing very fast but people tend to form sticky opinions (reasonably enough - there’s only so much time in the world).
2. It’s just hard to form robust objective opinions - you have to make a real effort to build test cases and evaluation processes and generally the barrier to entry there is pretty high.
So - I agree, calling people uninformed is not a great way to win them over, but maybe that’s the price of living in a world of anecdotes which become fixed in people’s minds.
Make it write a skill and rule hook for PreCompact to do a handoff that explains what was worked on, what to know, and what to do next. If it goes off the rails after compaction then it won’t be great in a new session either, and you want to make sure you maximize continuity or development will be unsustainable. A backlog.md and improvements.md workflow also helps with this (ticket numbers, descriptions, “focus on BACK-0075,” etc.)
It’s a bit rich to take the most negative interpretation of my statement, and moreso telling of your insecurities that you chose to be so offended.
And, ultimately, proving my point. Did you actually explain why you thought it’s superior? Or is it just because GitHub bad? Have you even tried it recently?
Claude (and most other models) in GitHub Copilot still only have 200k context, with a hefty amount being reserved for some reason. It's 1M at many other providers.
Do hacks like “read prompt.md, and follow its instructions. When you’re done, read it again and follow its instructions.” And then you have some background process appending to the file to keep it warm and you just keep writing there?
You could do that. I was just trying to say that if you make your original prompt complete enough, and you have well-defined success criteria, you can tell it to keep going until they are met.
> "Fix the following compile errors" -> one shot try and stops.
> "Fix the following compile errors. When done, test your work and continue iterating until build passes without error" -> same cost but it gets the job done.
There is a limit on how much copilot can do in one request, pretty generous but after some time vscode will say "this request is taking very long, do you want to continue" and that would count as a seperate request
I use it because they offer absurdly cheap prices that they're clearly losing money on. I can get $1000 at API prices of Opus 4.6, for in the range of $2 my cost through copilot.
Tighter (read better) integration with VSCode and Github than what you could get running claude code on the side.
Your question does raise a valid point - Github Copilot's value proposition is fairly limited in my opinion. Not to say worthless but limited and clearly varies depending on how Githubbey your dev workflows are.
Yeah, the workflow is superb. That’s what I miss most using Claude in a terminal inside VSCode. It doesn’t integrate with VSCode native diff tools like the native VSCode (GitHub Copilot does. The Claude extension in non-terminal mode is crap.
From a user point of view there's no real reason for it, from an admin point of view if your team is already using Github Enterprise then deploying it is basically hitting a toggle switch, and it has some more fine grained controls about what it can or can't do compared to Claude Code.
you can also get a service contract via MS quite easily/cheaply, which mightnot help you with hard problems but does solve the easy ones. example: in earlydays we bought OpenAI API directly and via Azure; when we needed account service we got it immediately from MS instead of waitlists from OpenAI.
As an aviator, that right there counts as an emergency landing. A hard one.
They limped it back home, they didn’t ditch a very sensitive airframe over enemy territory, I’d call that a win and the pilot deserves a medal for that.
Yeah. But mac is still and I mean BY FAR the cleanest of all operating system when you got to uninstall stuffs.
Windows is as bad as Linux, leftovers everywhere without any sense whatsoever. Some company use a directory, other use another, makes no sense.
On Linux, at least there is some kind of uniformity but since all apps install with sudo permissions, they get put everywhere and you never really know where.
On macos, you got 2 folders to look for, all in the user directory (app, application support) and that's it.
And the second most upvoted comment is someone seriously asking if 2026 if the year of Linux desktop...
reply