Yes, KDE is a desktop environment. It’s one of the “Windows-like” ones and very customizable, and arguably the most technically advanced one at the moment.

Wayland is the display server, as it is called. It’s basically the back-end component that facilitates actually displaying anything on the screen. It replaced another component called X11, which was released in 1987 and had become a completely unmaintainable mess of technological debt.

Wayland took a very long time to develop and there are still some growing pains, which is why you will occasionally still see people arguing that X11 is better – these days you should probably just ignore anyone who says that though, as the overwhelming majority of users will be much better served by Wayland than by X11.

As for what distros support it, basically every up-to-date distro (latest major version release during or after 2024) using one of the following desktop environments will default to Wayland: KDE, Gnome, COSMIC, Sway, Hyprland. Other DEs don’t yet have stable Wayland support. Notably Linux Mint, a very common recommendation, is not on this list because the Cinnamon DE it uses does not yet support Wayland.

A couple of example distros mentioned in the thread and article would be Bazzite, Fedora and CachyOS. These distros all update swiftly, which is desirable because the Linux desktop is advancing very quickly at the moment. Slower-moving distros like Debian or Ubuntu LTS tend to miss out on a lot of nice new features.

I just tested it on one of my laptops running Linux Mint Debian edition 7, (Debian 13 Trixie under the hood) with the Cinnamon desktop environment running X11 and it worked perfectly also. 4K TV set as the primary monitor scaled at 150%, the laptop’s screen as the secondary, 1080p at 100% scaling, applied the settings and it was completely fine.

X11 fractional scaling is not great. It may have looked fine if you only had a cursory glance, but it has many issues. “True” fractional scaling in X11 doesn’t work on a per-monitor basis IIRC, instead any per-monitor fractional scaling will be a relatively simple resize operation that results in lots of blurriness.

Well, the gospels themselves are an example of editorializing. None of the gospels are written by the disciples themselves, most if not all of them were written after all the apostles would have been dead, and it is widely agreed that two of them (Matthew and Luke) are basically fanfiction spin-offs of Mark and a second, long lost source.

To clarify, I think by the time the stories were canonized, the narrative was likely more or less established. But in the 2-3 centuries before that I expect it to have been quite varied. We have no real way of knowing either way because there are very few surviving scraps of manuscripts from that early on.

The New Testament was written after his death too, some parts of it earlier than others. I think it’s also a pretty safe bet that there was a lot of editorializing over the centuries, since AFAIK the earliest surviving copies of anything are from the 2nd or 3rd centuries CE.

Jesus wouldn’t quote the Bible. It was written hundreds of years after his death.

Clicked on link expecting a Tom Clancy book. Was severely disappointed.

This could literally be a Dwarf Fortress randomly generated inscription.

The teeth regrowth thing was only two years ago.

I mean, the number of logical qubits has gone from basically zero not too long ago to what it is now. The whole error correction thing has really only taken off in the past ~5 years. That Microsoft computer you mentioned that got 4 logical qubits out of 30 physical qubits represents a 3-fold increase over the apparently previous best of 12 logical qubits to 288 physical ones (published earlier the same year), which undoubtedly was a big improvement over whatever they had before.

And then the question is FOR WHAT? Dead people cant make use of quantum computers and dead people is what we will be if we dont figure out solutions to some much more imminent, catastrophic problems in the next 10 years.

Strange thing to say. There’s enough people on the planet to work on more than one problem at a time. Useful quantum computing will probably help solve many problems in the future too.

Even if it’s 8 physical qubits to 1 logical qubit, 6100 qubits would get you 762 logical cubits.

All I’m saying is that the technology seems to be on a trajectory of the number of qubits improving by an order of magnitude every few years, and as such it’s plausible that in another 5-10 years it could have the necessary thousands of logical qubits to start doing useful computations. Mere 5 years ago the most physical qubits in a quantum computer was still measured in the tens rather than the hundreds, and 10 years ago I’m pretty sure they hadn’t even broken ten.

We can only hope that Bitcoin gets pwned by quantum computers. It would be absolutely glorious.

There was a paper recently about a stable 6100-qubit system, so the trajectory is plausible. If 1399 qubits is needed for 2048-bit Shor’s, this would already meet that by a wide margin – though obviously this is a research system that AFAIK cannot do actual computations.

https://www.livescience.com/technology/computing/quantum-record-smashed-as-scientists-build-mammoth-6-000-qubit-system-and-it-works-at-room-temperature