1,199 karma · joined December 1, 2014
Syncthing is not really meant for backup, but I really like that it just happens over the network, in the background, without further intervention. I am clumsy, lazy and not disciplined enough for other backup setups that require action (e.g. connecting the computer to something sometimes, manually triggering backups, etc...)
Now that Xfce is being Gnome-ized, have you considered this: http://lxde.org/?
Maybe it suits your taste (lightweight, no CSD).
I had to figure out how to not render their own shadow, and to disable the "Close" and "Maximize" buttons and edit the Gtk/DecorationLayout property to taste, but I really appreciate the nice simplified menus they bring, and the removal of the bloated menu bars. They are more usable, specially on a small screen when the window is not full screen (on a tile on the side).
I also like CSD when I have to use Gnome itself for the bigger dragging area. Traditional menu bars and title bars is poor UX just to enable certain programming decoupled. Now the the abstractions have evolved and we have widget toolkits and the abstraction is provided without compromising the UX.
I am sorry you got used to that. You may still use KDE or something else. But some of us really like what GTK and GNOME people are doing. I know the noisiest voices are the critical ones, so here is a reminder: there are plenty of happy users that love the work you are doing. Thanks a lot, I love you for making my computer work better every day, and with Free Software!
I agree. The UK still had significant indirect influence in that Churchill convinced France an other European powers to not support the Republic. That support might have diminished the URSS influence, or maybe just started WWII earlier, or prevented it... all that is political fiction of course, the truth is that Germany and (later) the URSS were the only significant international powers in action.
> About revisionism... there was blood in both sides' hands. To mention just the most obvious fact: the spark that ignited the war was the assasination of the opposition's leader. That happened in downtown Madrid with total impunity. Do you really believe that can happen in a normal situation? That's terribly one-sided.
I agree that the situation was not specially peaceful before the war (I did not imply that in my parent comment). Still, documentation says that the coup was planned before the leader of the opposition was killed. But as another comment says, there are many forces into play and it is hard to quantify the impact of particular events... It is also hard to discuss the war without entering into moral positions (i.e. what justifies what.).
I don't need to go further into analyzing this... I am happy that we agreed on the influence of Germany and URSS.
Btw, last year I read "Homage to Catalonia" by Orwell, in which he talks about his experience during the war. Of course it is a very one-sided account (he fought for the republic) but nontheless interesting from a literary and anecdotal point of view, and it might appeal the english-speaking crowd here.
sudo apt install trash-cli
alias rm="echo This is not the command you want to use"
Countries like the Soviet Union had much more importance
as they were the main supporters of 1934 "Asturias'
revolution" that tried to make Spain a proletarian
dictatorship and URSS satellite. Stalin will influence the
war removing Largo Caballero and putting his lackey Negrin
as leader of the republicans.
Germany also had great influence as they considered
essential not letting his enemy URSS get more power in
Spain.
In fact, the "Asturias Revolution" of 1934 was organized by anarquists (CNT) and social democrats (UGT) and anti-stalinist communist groups like the (BOC).
The pro-russian Communist Party in Spain had little support among Spanish workers, and it only gained power after the country was long into war and the URSS became the only international supporter of the Spanish goverment.
Germany supported the rebellion since early on because of their affiliation with the fascists ideas of the uprising in the 1936 coup-de-etat.
Your views reflect the historical revisionism of the Spanish right wing to paint Franco as someone that saved Spain from the soviets. However, the uprising was motivated by the loss of power from the Church, big land-owners and capitalists during the republic.
- Does your company contribute to any of the non-AGPL pieces of software it uses, either in code or money?
- Does it have propietary patches to these software that it does not contribute back?
- Has it published any open source packages of its own?
Crabs On The Island (Russian 1958, English 1968) (original: Kraby idut po ostrovu), by Anatoly Dneprov
The potential for JSON parsing to fail is encoded in its
type, not in the potential for a variable to null, or
false, or for an exception to have been thrown. You’re
leaning on the compiler to tell you if you’ve handled the
failure cases properly, as the code won’t compile
otherwise. Now instead of testing for runtime exceptions
you only test to make sure that your business logic is
correct.
The OP does discuss checked expcetions a little bit:
Checked exceptions guarantee that someone will deal with
the issue, but they are extremely annoying, and might
result in disparate and different exception handlers all
over the place.
There are some actual problems with exceptions though:
1. It may be hard to tell from looking at the code which particular calls inside a function produce which particular kinds of exceptions.
2. This is particularly problematic with stateful code, as to ensure exception-save stateful transactions.
3. They tend to be more expensive for the exceptional codepath -- on the other hand, they are faster than Optional for the non-exceptional path!
In my experience points 2 and 3 are the most important. Since in Java many things may throw, one has two think about exception safety anyways most of the time. This is also a good argument maybe, to just avoid statefulnes instead.
Point 3 is very important. Maybe exceptions should be relegated to truly exceptional situations, and not be used as a replacement for an if. Optional<>/Either<> is excellent in this sitiation. Still in some languages do use exceptions for this and familiarity might be something to consider there (I'm thinking of idiomatic Python signals iteration end or key presence in maps, but Python also has very different performance characteristics as Java and does not have static types for the most part anyways...).
As much as I actually love FP, and I am also trying to bring more FP to other languages (C++), I don't believe in fighting the language for the sake of it. Having a nuanced conversation about the "why" and a the "when" is important. Specially when bringing these techniques to communities that are not used to them and, at the end of the day, already have methods that "Just Work TM". Otherwise, you end up having reactions like this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13505620
I can still use it as chat, address book, check events or particular updates/mentions, but I am not fed and infinite stream of mind sugar whenever I log in...
I still would love to completely quit... I tried a couple of times but I ended going back to contact particular people or to check out events. Facebook is turning into a basic social survival tool for foreigners living in metropolises and it kinda annoys me a lot.
And precisely the reason we like Rust is because it is like the new C++ (moves, lean lambdas, templates, on-the-stack values, borrowing) without so much of the old stuff. What do you think? What do you expect from Rust?
Humans: the first massively cannibal species.
In fact, most developed mammals develop societies and specially in many apes these are quite egalitarian. In the same way as developing tools and understanding nature in order to adapt to it was key to the success of humans, I believe that the ability to cooperate and to feel for each-other via empathy is key as well.
Your mechanistic view of evolution and nature disregards all social aspects of human existence. It is unscientific and and excuse to support oppressive systems and the predatory behaviors that are putting the planet and humans themselves at risk.
Nature does not "disrupt", nature adapts and evolves. It creates symbiotic systems that enable long processes in which life, this weird mechanism constantly energy into movement, can happen. It created humans, with the abilities to discern, associate, help each other and pursue happiness. Your cannibalistic view of society is not gonna remove our "natural" thrive to build societies worth living in from the rest of us.
alias rm='echo "This is not the command you are looking for."; false'
Of course this does not prevent other kinds of accidents, like calling dd to write on top of the /home partition... ok, I am a mess :)
Looking at the destructuring example, it seems like part of the problem is that the new constructs are actually more general, since their semantics are defined in terms of iterators in order to support user defined types... I guess, on the other hand, this still allows for better overall system performance (e.g. one can now pass lazy-evaluated transformations instead of producting new arrays all the time when writing functional-style code.). An alternative would be to have sepparate syntax [a, b, c...] for arrays and (a, b, c...) for iterator based destructuring. There is the risk then that then everyone starts using the former syntax for the sake of premature optimization and we end up with over-restrictive API's that then disable the opportunities for lazy-evaluation and so on described before.
Definitely and interesting case. It would be nice to be able to read some of the discussion of the standardization process and see how these performance trade-offs where considered. Anyone has some pointers?
As a non-USA person here I was also amazed with some of these comments. But I am not sure it is only about "subsidizing" others (which it also is). If you read a lot of these comments, they go into great lengths into describing their particular live choices, their very deliberate little decisions they make while traveling all the time, and how these makes them special. I feel that there is another side to this individualism: the pride on ones choices, on being unique and in some way, standing out of the masses through their clever use of their options.
It reminded me about another thing that surprised me in the USA: food menus are lengthy, and everything is customizable! You have to choose ingredients, topping, side, everything!
I guess, for a lot of USAmericans this feels empowering. Interestingly, coming from the other side of the Atlantic, it had the opposite effect on me: I felt overwhelmed, that I was required to do make decisions and do too much thinking, that at the end, it was the chef's job to offer me a menu with dishes that make sense and taste good! In fact in Europe, good restaurants tend to have very few options, you go there because you acknowledge that the person that designed the menu knows more about those dishes than you...
I guess, I am also ok about "subsidizing" others... I know that some days I will eat at the flight, some days I won't, some days I will need extra luggage, some days I won't... It is just easier if we don't have to go through all the bureaucracy of managing these decisions. It is cheaper too, since the accounting and planning becomes easier. Some people might be getting be getting more or less out of it, but it evens out with time anyways. I can get my "feeling of importance" by other means.
There is something more this might show us about the "customization" vs "just works" in how different people prefer their software. But I will think about this some other day...
You should be able to get a degree if you are willing to put through the effort of getting it, not whether you can afford its "market price".
I agree that that subsidizing tuition fees might not be the best way to solve the problem. That is why I think that education should be provided mostly by public institutions, like here in Europe. That way, access is not a matter of how much money you have and offer is controlled by a democratic agreement on what kind of society we want to invest in.
However, many of the data structures in that book do not translate great outside of the world of Haskell and ML. This library is mostly based on the work of Phil Bagwell, Rich Hickie, Tiark Rompf and others. Phil worked over the last decade on building immutable and/or concurrent data structures that are "pragmatic", ie. cache efficient, and supporting mutable facades. I recommend reading his work on Hash-Array Mapped Tries and Radix Balanced Trees.