creamytaco

i find this utter hogwash. Nicotine is physically addictive and tolerance builds up. When one that has been smoking moderately to heavily for years quits smoking, one goes through days of physical withdrawal.

These "simple tricks" are just another way to fail. You can postpone 1-2-3-4 cigarettes, but eventually you will smoke 4 in a row to get the nicotine high with the intensity and duration your body is used to.

Which is why the patch is effective, it helps with physical withdrawal. These jedi mind tricks don't.

Entirely irrelevant, empty deflection, to the points I made.

Terrible website structure, forces you to click and load new pages for every concept, no download option, no see "all in one page" option. Lots of screen area waste.

You criticize Electron and then proceed to make pretty much the same mistake by using ... JVM. I don't think this is going to fly as a better alternative to JavaScript. It's just one evil exchanged for another.

And I'll be extremely surprised if you manage to do smooth animations at 144Hz in Clojure without killing battery life.

I have had two close friends quit recently, within a few months of each other. They both blamed management and especially Ivan Krstić.

This is a proprietary core from a hobbyist/retro mainly Amiga team (nothing to do with Motorola) that has had quite a lot of murkyness associated with it.

There have been accusations of this being simply a Coldfire ripoff based on leaked information [1] but also a lot of people have complained that they delete critical posts from their web forum and discord.

The core is buggy and not really fully compatible with Motorola processors. They've also implemented their own extensions (AMMX). The Amiga scene has had countless peddlers of proprietary hardware, trying to vendor lock-in a substantial userbase. My opinion is that people are better served with Mister FPGA which is completely open and/or other open solutions (The Buffee project, PiStorm).

[1] https://eab.abime.net/showthread.php?t=102586

Or, drink the cheapest, quickest coffee you can make/get for caffeine and tea for taste. No equipment needed, less of your life wasted.

Emacs is a tool with an enormous set of available functionality that has been continuously developed for 35 years. Moreover, its major strength is its programmable and nearly infinitely-extensible nature.

And yet, it does "just work", from the moment you first run it -no previous experience needed- it does present you with a familiar "editor skin". It does offer you an interactive tutorial. It does come with comprehensive offline documentation. It does come with the best interactive querying and documentation capabilities of any software system in wide-use today.

So, taking all of that into account, when you say "just works", I read "I don't want to spend any time whatsoever to learn 35 years of features and a software system that is by far the most user-empowering in existence today". Your loss.

2. It makes perfect sense if you actually learn how Emacs works. It provides superficial elements like GTK-look-and-feel (scrollbars, menubars). Most Emacs experts disable all of these anyway, thus nothing of value is lost. On the other hand, toolkit-less Emacs tends to be a lot more stable. That was definitely the case for GTK since it had well-known bugs that the GTK developers refused to fix that would crash Emacs. I suggest you compile graphical Emacs on Linux without any toolkit (or with Athena/Lucid/Motif) to see for yourself.

3. Because there are trade-offs involved and the (informed) user should be responsible for enabling them.

I've been using Emacs for more than 20 years, these are all (for the most part) non-issues, brought up by folks who either are new to Emacs or never read the documentation / dived below the surface.

1. Emacs Lisp is great (for the problem domain), exists and works. Common Lisp could work but then given how close Emacs Lisp and CL are, there's no clear benefit, especially with Emacs getting native compilation. Scheme was proposed, some POC code written and failed because nobody was interested. It doesn't fit and fragmenting one of Emacs's greatest strengths (consistent ecosystem of working Emacs Lisp code) is a terrible idea.

2. The Emacs UI core is completely toolkit-agnostic. It doesn't use GTK on Windows. It doesn't use GTK on macOS. You can run _graphical_ Emacs without GTK or any toolkit whatsoever on Linux, and not lose any functionality. Therefore what you write makes no sense (ugly hacks to support a subset of GTK).

3. There are multiple ways to do this. Read up on setting the mark.

4. Threading has nothing to do with TRAMP freezing, bad configuration does. TRAMP documentation (does anyone that bring up these points ever read it?) has multiple sections on improving performance. Check "SSH control master" and "Improving performance of asynchronous remote processes".

5. SVG support is already there and more is on the pipeline.

What I've noticed during my 40 year computing career is that folks get lazier and lazier. Few read manuals / documentation anymore but most are quick to jump to superficial conclusions without any substantial time investment in trying to figure things out. Spoonfed knowledge is the order of the day, and the folks doing the spooning are usually not far from clueless themselves (the blind leading the blind). This leads to generational gaps and rapid propagation of erroneous ideas amidst the newbie masses, very similar to what you laid out.

Emacs mastery requires commitment and time investment in order to understand (at least) the basic models and the trade-offs involved. If that doesn't take place, one can start going down paths that are entirely irrelevant ("Emacs needs threads so that it doesn't freeze!", "Let's use JavaScript so we can do non-blocking IO!", "Let's rewrite Emacs in Rust!")

Here is some advice I hope you find useful: I wouldn't hire you based on this because all I see is a shit ton of 3rd party libraries stitched together. The exact opposite of what I would like to see in a good engineering candidate.

So you may want to rethink your approach in terms of putting forth qualities that speak to your engineering prowess.

I also wouldn't personally use this software as it has so many 3rd party dependencies that one would find it hard to audit or make any robustness / security guarantees.

It's on Github and multiple other places.

One less site to visit every day. Same thing happened with Reddit, which is unusable on mobile web without login.

Not even close. Have you heard of acquihires? I spent 6 years at Google, and I'd say half the people I worked with over those years were definitely average or a little below in terms of skill and intelligence, certainly one couldn't describe them as "highly intelligent". Every time that I asked, they told me they didn't go through the interview process.

People like Kelly (and there's loads of them) are so insulated from normality that one can't possibly see them as anything but useful idiots to the techonomic powers that be. Their delusional optimism acts as a constant counterweight to people beginning to ACT in the real world in order to effect change.

Sounds like wishful thinking to me. In the meantime, we are seeing the climate get worse year after year and we know that this is only the beginning. Moreover, there are non-linear effects at play that we can't even model, all of which will make the situation worse, none of which will make it any better. Doesn't seem very wise to bet human survival on technology that doesn't for the most part yet exist, and parts of which do exist don't work at scale with experts divided on future feasibility.

I find that one can invert pretty much every opinion that Gosling holds on a technical matter and be better off. It boggles the mind that people listen to him.

"rouge administrators" ?

They actual elites have enough money to live comfortably for hundreds of years. They don’t have to care about climate change, maybe they even see it as welcome since it will kill billions of people if nothing is done. That’s how detached they are from the rest of us.

Those figures are hard to attribute correctly because they don’t account for export manufacturing. Consumption in the USA is fueling Chinese exports and is responsible for a large chunk of their CO2 emissions.

This is short sighted since political parties are both playing for the same team: they are owned by finance and corporations. These are entities that are absolutely not going to allow the radical changes needed to stay within 2c temperature gain (which is still bad, millions will die, but maybe not catastrophic for the species as a whole). Alas, 2c is already priced in given current policies, we will be lucky to stay below 3c. The societal changes from that alone will be devastating.

A Lisp runs Lisp code, code that could have been written anywhere from 50 years ago to today. The extent and degree of modifications required before that code runs, illustrates how far away one is from Lisp.

All Lisps (incl Scheme, Common Lisp, Emacs Lisp) sit fairly close together in this historical "Lisp" space. I can get Lisp code from the CMU AI repository and run it as is or with slight modifications in any of the aforementioned Lisps, but Clojure would require a complete rewrite, both syntax and logic/semantics. Ergo, I and lots of others don't see Clojure as a Lisp. I'd call it Lisp-inspired or a descendant of Lisp, but it's clear that it is a different language.

Lots of folks don't see Clojure as a Lisp.

Emacs Lisp has macros which are a lot more elegant (not to mention powerful) than Python decorators which comparatively, are nothing more than a kludge.

And then you get cancer..

Cyberspace does not exist in isolation, it's a network reflecting to a large extent the sum of its parts. In the early / mid 90s, before the masses moved in, "cyberspace" was for the most part what Barlow imagined it to be.

The race to the bottom, adtech, consumerist takeover only started when the "stupid" society at large became the majority, so for the west this process was really inevitable. China, being a dictatorship on top of a closed-feedback system and unwilling to let capitalism run unrestricted, has a much better chance of controlling the process and using it to shape society according to a central vision. We should be worried.

When I first moved to USA from Denmark, back in the late 90s, the chemical, sickly syrupy taste of Coca Cola made me gag and I was very surprised in terms of how different it was from the European version. Then I found out that in Europe, they use sugar rather than corn syrup. It's amazing what the Americans will put up with.

If the current situation wasn't so grim, I would chuckle at the magnitude of delusional thinking it must take to produce a post such as this, when the climate crisis has humanity paralyzed like deer caught in the headlights.

We're destroying the earth and suffocating in our own waste, yet "there's a good chance of productivity explosion by 2100 which could quickly lead to what one might call a "technologically mature" civilization"

If you think that's bad, you haven't been to the US. Public transport is at least an order of magnitude worse here, with all the issues you mentioned and then some, such as contracting a wide variety of crippling diseases like drug-resistant Tuberculosis and MRSA and getting maimed / killed by folks with serious mental illness.

Here is another wow moment that follows from the one you mentioned: The universe you experience is different than my own. We use language and shared culture to consensually hallucinate a "shared" universe but no such thing truly exists for us. We can perceive objects and describe them in similar ways but the fact remains that we can't access the universe that the objects truly exist in (if that even exists) since, for us, they have no independent existence outside of our mental representation. Or shortly, when you die the universe dies with you.