arijun

TreeSitter is an amazing tool but is (purposefully) quite limited compared to an IDE--it doesn't even cross file boundaries, so go to definition is a non-starter. Zed uses LSPs like Rust Analyzer to fill that role.

What is Ghostty's advantage over Alacritty?

I suspect you may be operating in "Restricted mode," aka it doesn't know if it can trust the directory. In that mode, the main tools like Rust analyzer are quite restricted. All of your complaints should be resolved once Rust Analyzer/basedpyrite are up and running.

I do think they should have a more obvious warning that the current directory is untrusted, right now the little green warning in the corner is way too unobtrusive and will result in many people having the same issue as you.

Are they losing money on a per-ride basis? I assumed they had large R&D costs, but that each ride would be near break even.

I am a huge proponent of increased public transit (I'm of the opinion that every city should have a massive congestion tax with large swaths only accessible on foot or by public transit), but trains and buses would be wildly inconvenient for what op is describing.

Trying to take something like a windsurf board on a train, and then having to navigate multiple train changes along with whatever other baggage you have makes it a non-starter.

The "last mile problem" you mention is unresolved when it comes to getting from the closest public transit stop to the actual destination (frequently in a park or even off road).

And finally, the final cost to the rider would be significantly higher, as sleeper trains are not cheap.

I think America could do quite well if it focused on public transit in and between densely populated areas. Fewer cars in cities could make for denser cities, which in turn could allow for even more public transit. But outside of population centers, America is much more spread out than Europe, meaning that trains are less economical, and often wouldn't get the ridership that would allow them to make sense.

Ah you mean generally, not in this specific case.

What does thumbing their noses mean? They have been paying while continuing their behavior, or not paying at all?

The first seems like it could be resolved with an escalating fine schedule, and the second could be mitigated by requiring Apple/Google to remove it from the app store (one of the rare cases walled gardens are on consumers' side).

What does Box<str> give you that &str doesn’t?

The backup camera mandate is associated with a 78% (!) reduction in fatalities in children in backover incidents. That’s a pretty high bar to cross to prove that the camera is more harmful the it is helpful, especially since, as others have said, you don’t have to use the screen for anything else.

Why don't we package Acetaminophen with NAC? The reason I can think of is it will be delivered earlier than it normally is in cases of overdose. That would mean there will be less NAC in your system than at the peak dosage when the body starts using the pathway that needs it. But every little bit must help, no?

The first quote is definitely talking about depth of focus; the linked image talks about depth of focus and how it compares to depth of field. As I understand it, depth of focus has a similar effect to depth of field. If your rays diverge more quickly on the side of your sensor, you will have a blurrier image for the same distance from the focal plane. Otherwise, how do you think depth of focus presents itself in the final image?

It seems like they do? That’s why gp suggested disconnecting the Wi-Fi entirely.

I think these TVs are subsidized by the ad revenue, so you might cause them more pain by buying one and never connecting it.

Did you read the article?

> Now, here's the kicker: the bigger the focusing lens is, the larger the cone of light rays is, meaning the the out of focus parts of the image will be more out of focus

From the page [0] it takes the depth of focus image from:

> [Depth of focus] differs from depth of field because it describes the distance over which light is focused at the camera's sensor, as opposed to the subject

[0] https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.h...

Doesn’t that remove the narrow depth of focus the author is going for?

> I love to point this out to OOP haters

That seems like a pretty lame gotcha--saying "Aha! The language you write in uses your hated paradigm under the hood" seems to invite the immediate response of "So? I don't use it."

I assume that the solution to this would be a modification of the cryptographic basis of Bitcoin. Is there any way at all to do that without leaving behind people who aren't available at the time of transfer? Like if Satoshi was in a coma and not dead, is there any way at all to harden Bitcoin against attacks that would leave his wallet accessible to him?

But those aesthetics stem from that need for fewer bugs, performance, maintainability. Identifying/defining code smell comes from experience of what does and doesn’t work.

> I wouldn't care so long as I wasn't expected to maintain it.

But, if you’re the one putting out that software, of course you will have to maintain it! When your users come back with a bug or a “this flow is too slow,” you will have to wade into the innards (at least until AI can do that without mistakes).

Some argue that her father’s editing was detrimental, that it removed some of her voice and her experience. I think there’s something to editing out the more… problematic parts of a pubescent child’s diary. I would have been mortified if my thoughts of that nature were published, and the censorship allowed the diary to reach a more broad audience in e.g. grade schools. But at the same time, I do understand the wish to see the full, authentic story.

> It's rather unreasonable to be annoyed.

I disagree. If you discover that a bug that makes an open source library unusable to you, after spending time on learning and using that library, and the authors close the bug as a wontfix, I think being annoyed is quite reasonable, even expected.

I mean, no security is perfect, it's just trying to be "good enough" (where "good enough" varies by application). If you've ever downloaded and used a package using pip or npm and used it without poring over every line of code, you've opened yourself up to an attack. I will keep doing that for my personal projects, though.

I think the question is, how much risk is involved and how much do those mitigating methods reduce it? And with that, we can figure out what applications it is appropriate for.

> AC is less efficient than DC at a given voltage

To expand on this, a given power line can only take a set maximum current and voltage before it becomes a problem. DC can stay at this maximum voltage constantly, while AC spends time going to zero voltage and back, so it's delivering less power on the same line.

Also, if anything would have been Edison's revenge it would have been HVDC, where they're sending power long distances with DC. (But as you said, even there it wouldn't make a ton of sense, since they were arguing in a different era).

Surely if it makes sense for the big players, they will do it, and then the benefits will trickle down to the rest? Like how Formula 1 technology will end up in consumer vehicles.

Having all been in high school, I think we can all agree that lack of trust is warranted. Not for every kid, but for enough of them that blanket rules make sense. We also don’t allow students to use the calculator app on their phone for tests, and instead make them buy the “old school technology fallback” version.

An MP3 player seems like a good compromise, and far cheaper than the phone they’re replacing.

They are saying that was a bad strategy and not the usual one. I have no idea to what extent that’s true.

For your link [1], many of those issues have been addressed with pandas 2.0 (which I believe Wes Mckinney [pandas' original author] contributed to). So it's a bit disingenuous to point to that post and say "See? Even Wes disowns it!"

That being said, if I were to start a new project requiring that kind of work today, I would probably try Polars first. Their greenfield implementation allowed them to get rid of many of the crusty edges of pandas.

Yeah I had to ask it to stop doing that as well && chaining commands that it could split. I got tired of having to manually give permissions all the time (or leaving it to churn, only to come back after a while to see it had asked for permissions very early into the task)

When you say personally responsible, do you mean legal repercussions? Because, yes, that is definitionally what the law is. Or do you mean some extra-judicial responsibility? Because GP (and this whole chain, for the most part) is only talking about law.

Why wouldn’t a strict keto diet not be a cure for those cancers?