LinXitoW

There's a bunch of old people that have kids that also very clearly don't give a damn about preserving the world for the next generation. Should they also not be allowed to vote?

Hell, I would bet that childfree people are more likely to support "future-preserving" plans than parents, on average. I'm thinking climate change, Fridays For Future.

Anecdotally, of the 4 sets of parents I know well enough to know their political opinions, none of them are really concerned about preserving the world for their children. I'm vegan, car-free, childfree and vote for the "green" options.

For me, faster typing isn't about saving time in total, it's about reducing the time between thoughts. Typing is a manual process that hinders my thinking, so the faster I can dip into and out of typing, the faster I can get back to typing.

Obviously ADTs are probably just a standin, but I think they are a feature absolutely every language ever should have. They are also not very expensive, esp. runtime wise they're (afaik) equivalent to the clunkier solutions (like classic enums).

Have you never had a thing that could be EXACTLY one of two things, ever? And you wanted the compiler to make sure that, anywhere you used that thing, you had to take care of BOTH of those possibilities? That's one of the main uses of ADTs.

I really liked Kotlin in the beginning, but it's error handling story is non-existent. They removed the ONLY decent (not great, very flawed) complier validated method for error handling, checked exceptions, and gave us nothing in return.

It'd be so easy to simply do exactly what Rust does. Kotlin already has the ADT stuff necessary, all we need is some kind of "bubbling" operator, like the ? in Rust. Because right now, it's all just super horrible manual checks everywhere.

As someone that has done some Haskell, and does Java for a living, I think their metaphor is extremely accurate. It's not about purity, it's about how the functional parts were grafted onto the language, and therefore don"t "interop" with the classical ways very well.

In a good mixed paradim language like Rust, you can freely choose the correct paradigm for the problem, and can easily mix them. In Java, they are often at odds with each other. Best example is exceptions (esp. checked exceptions) and all Stream operations. They take a lambda which does NOT throw any exceptions. So, you need to either never use checked exceptions (which is impossible, because most libraries still do) or not use streaming, or create a horrendous hybrid.

You can still use VSCode and just use the Vim plugin.

Vim is not an editor, it's a language you speak with your editor. Like with real language learning, some of it is just rote memorization.

There are, however, some tricks that I find really help. The first is to find mnemonics for the different actions. Some are obvious, for example (d)elete or (c)hange. Some require a little imagination, like un(t)il (like in 'til).

Finally, there's some level of logic to many related things. For example, the CAPITAL version of an action is generally a "louder" more aggressive/stronger version. So (a)ppend is just "insert after current cursor position", whereas (A)PPEND! means "insert at the very end of this line".

Just like with languages, if you use them long enough, they start to "make sense", and "feel right". I don't have to translate "I want to append at the end of the line" to the correct keybinding, I simply "speak" to the editor in a way that "feels" right.

But that's ask culture in the end. Guess people can only guess, whereas ask can always guess, but then fallback to asking.

Guess also assumes a very similar shared context and understanding. This leads to xenophobia, because "those foreigners" seem so rude simply because they "guess" with a different contexts. Again, asking is superior.

But most askers can still implement some level of guessing, and fall back to asking to clear up any misunderstandings. Guesser CANNOT. Asking is superior.

And it is guessing, because at some point it requires mind reading to accommodate. Again, most askers still understand, they are just sane enough to understand that mind reading is impossible.

The biggest issue with that is autocompletion in IDEs. I agree that it's nicer "ideologically", but being able to just go "I got this thing, what can I do with it?" with a simple dot is really nice. Maybe LSPs will at some point be easy to query for that.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but if I use TF in a Petstore-as-a-Service to provision new machines for my users, does that not count as embedding TF? So if HashiCorp decides to do Petstore-as-a-Service tomorrow, no matter how shitty the offering, no matter how insincere, even if it's just a single intern working on it, I would have to, overnight, rip TF out of my entire offering, no?

One of these my IDE can typecheck and apply code hightlighting, the other is just a blob of text.

This feels like the perfect level of SQL abstraction. SQL is great in theory, but gets really hard too read once you throw in joins with subqueries.

That feels like a false dichotomy. You can have beliefs outside of consumerism without resorting to religions or traditions.

I have Tarot cards exactly for this reason. It's also just a fun party game.

But of all the esoteric things, astrology seems the most boring to me, because it's static and determined just once when you're born. It feels like there's just no interaction involved.

Text is a universally understood file format. That means it can be easily diffed, compressed, smartly stored (like storing only changes). That's not true of binaries, at least most of them. That's why I'm pessimistic about a good universal VCS ever existing.

I would also love some kind of good (even decent would be enough) VCS for binary/non-text files. I get a stress rash just watching our designers work with "final_final_2023_1_backup_new.psd".

I think Git is relatively simple in relation to all the complicated things you can do with it. If you don't need/use those complicated things, it of course feels like way too much work for too little pay off.

Go has succeeded because it's not horrible and supported and used by one of the biggest companies out there. That means you end up with a long list of decent libraries, which to me feels like the main factor of success for a language.

I somewhat like Intellij too, but it seems insanely slow, esp. with the Vim plugin. I have to slow down my editing sometimes, because all it's fancy features can't handle the speed.

Unless we go with a very cheap option (kill all the houseless), housing them is actually a net positive for the city. Being houseless as a lot of negatives that cost us directly or indirectly. Think police enforcement, garbage cleanup, emergency rooms, even lost productivity.

This is a bug, and should be fixed in the next version. It happens in Top Day too sometimes.

A simple trick is to browse page 0 instead of page 1, by editing the URL.

I have to ask: Did you just quit Vim the editor or also Vim the keybindings?

Because I can totally see not using the editor, but the keybindings, even the basic ones every emulation plugin manages to do well, are such a big win it's hard for me to believe I'd ever give those up.

Also, at least from my perspective, VSCode and Neovim are eye-to-eye, in the sense that both get most of their magic from interfacing with Language Servers, which both do very well. Though even the more approachable Neovim still seems to have a fetish for configuration/a hatred against sane defaults.

Android is the perfect example. As far as I can tell, the horrible evils of sideloading everyone keeps talking about have SIMPLY NOT HAPPENED.

Their profits exist solely because they exploit and steal from other ordinary people. Most ordinary people will lose far more money to labour or wage theft than they'll ever gain from profits.

One could argue that the relatively high compensation for programmers is the main reason so much cool opensource stuff could even get started. A universal income for everyone could, hypothetically, put everyone in a similar position of being able to afford to do "productive" hobbies, vs. working a third minimum wage job.

Our company is trialing/thinking about going fully remote, but then having a few big "meetups/workations" every year. Maybe rent a nice cabin (big cabin) for a month, and people are free to show up for a week or more.

You get a little socialization going, you give people the freedom to choose, you still save money in total AND because the "hybrid" isnt randomly distributed, you might actually get all those "useful" communications happening.

I mean, most companies had 2+ years of changed culture. RTO office IS the culture change, not the other way around.

Which can only work if you have a team entirely located in the same place, working on the same project.

This demonstrates the most important difference between In-Office fans and remoters: They ALWAYS have the best possible situations thinkable, far and away better than any average or median.

A 30 minute walking commute is INSANELY rare, as is a quiet section, as even is a office cafe. I'd be far less pissed about forced in-office work if I had any of those things.

I'd bet money that most people that vegan or vegetarian are also far more active about human suffering. It makes sense that someone that believes we should (and can) act to reduce/end suffering would apply that concept universally, rather than selectively.

But just so you realize, your argument sounds EXACTLY like all the right wingers that suddenly care about all the poor americans once immigrants enter the discussion. Most people that make these arguments care about neither, all they care about is not having to actually do anything and still feel moral.

1. Moral agency: Humans can reason morally, and (at least in theory) strive to act morally. Lions are not capable of that (afaik)

2. Necessity: Lions have no supermarkets. 95% of the people reading this can most definitely go vegan (and 99% vegetarian). Just like how self defense and murder are different.

3. Non-existence: 99% of the animals we slaughter we also artificially bred into existence. It's a false equivalence, because those animals wouldn't even exist

4. Practicality: Regulating wild animal feeding behaviour would be stupendously difficult. A vegan world on the other hand is not just possible, but also better for everyone. In zoos, where we can control "wild" animals, we already reduce suffering by not feeding live prey.

For one, it's incredibly hard to believe that anyone genuinely believes that "killing" a carrot and killing a dog are in anyway morally similar.

Secondly, this is utterly IRRELEVANT IN PRACTICE! Your consumption of animals causes far, far, far more plant "deaths" than if you actually just ate plants. BY YOUR OWN LOGIC you should be vegan. Of course, you can also use your logic to go the other way. If it's all the same morally, might as well start eating humans. Us white people have got some experience with that.

> I am in favor of reducing the harm I am able to

Wonderful, that makes you vegan. As in, that is the actual (common) definition of veganism: Reduce suffering and death as far as practicable and possible.