Well, Flatpak installs aliases, so as long as your distribution - or yourself - add the <installation>/exports/bin path to $PATH, then you'll be able to use the application IDs to launch them.

And if you want to have the Flatpak available under a different name than its ID, you can always symlink the exported bin to whatever name you'd personally prefer.
I've got Blender set up that way myself, with the org.blender.Blender bin symlinked to /usr/local/bin/blender, so that some older applications that expect to be able to simply interop with it are able to.

One thing you can test is to apply a Chrome user-agent on Firefox when visiting YouTube. In my personal experience that actually noticeably improves the situation.

Go has a heavy focus on simplicity and ease-of-use by hiding away complexity through abstractions, something that makes it an excellent language for getting to the minimum-viable-product point. Which I definitely applaud it for, it can be a true joy to code an initial implementation in it.

The issue with hiding complexity like such is when you reach the limit of the provided abstractions, something that will inevitably happen when your project reaches a certain size. For many languages (like C/C++, Ruby, Python, etc) there's an option to - at that point - skip the abstractions and instead code directly against the underlying layers, but Go doesn't actually have that option.
One result of this is that many enterprise-sized Go projects have had to - in pure desperation - hire the people who designed Go in the first place, just to get the necessary expertice to be able to continue development.

Here's one example in the form of a blog - with some examples of where hidden complexity can cause issues in the longer term; https://fasterthanli.me/articles/i-want-off-mr-golangs-wild-ride

What is truly bloated is their network-install images, starting with a 14MB kernel and 65MB initrd, which then proceeds to pull a 2.5GB image which they unpack into RAM to run the install.

This is especially egregious when running thin VMs for lots of things, since you now require them to have at least 4GB of RAM simply to be able to launch the installer at all.

Compare this to regular Debian, which uses an 8MB kernel and a 40MB initrd for the entire installer.
Or some larger like AlmaLinux, which has a 13MB kernel and a 98MB initrd, and which also pulls a 900MB image for the installer. (Which does mean a 2GB RAM minimum, but is still almost a third of the size of Ubuntu)

I think the only project I've seen so far where I've felt that a blockchain has actually been the correct choice is Alfis, which is a decentralized DNS that uses the blockchain as the public append-only ledger that it is, and it uses proof-of-work to add arbitrary costs to updates - to make spamming or namesquatting expensive.

This won't really affect the development of ZLUDA much in particular, since the main developer happens to live in The Netherlands, and clean-room reverse engineering - especially for interoperability purposes - is fully protected by law in the EU.

But NVIDIA does really like to make it as much of a pain as possible to support CUDA software anywhere but for a single user on their personal consumer-grade desktop.

Has anything actually happened in ownClouds development?

The last I saw of them was FOSDEM a few years back, where NextCloud were handing out whitepapers and showing off their new Hub, chat, VoIP stack, group sharing system, and more. And ownCloud were sat somewhat opposite with two people and a screen showing a screenshot of a default ownCloud install, along with a big sign hanging from the ceiling saying "Join the winning team."

Took this a few days ago. I'd been reading, and put my pad down to go grab a cup of tea, returned to this.
The image is downscaled quite a bit, was originally posted elsewhere and had to fit in the size limit.

If they actually put trackpads on them then Windows wouldn't be as much of an idiotic decision.
Windows with only sticks is absolutely insane, Windows with trackpads is just less smart.

A.k.a. do you have a larger version?

The main benefits to BTRFS over something like ext4 tends to be considered as; the subvolume support - which is what's used for snapshotting, the granluar quotas, reflinks, transparent compression, and the fact that basically all filesystem operations can be performed online.

I'm personally running BTRFS in a couple of places; NAS, laptop, and desktops. Mainly for the support to do things like snapshots and subvolumes, but I also make heavy use of both reflinks and compression, and I've also made use of online filesystem actions quite a few times.

This is basically the reason for one of the main characters being there in Stargate Universe.