238 karma · joined May 25, 2024
I think it has.
Have you tried Rectangle? It's not automatic, but I find it a reasonable compromise. Last I tried, Yabai et. al. were all pretty flaky compared to proper x11 twms.
If you could keep your shit under control you'd be so ridiculously OP - I'm not convinced it would actually be that bad :)
This seems pretty reasonable, but once you start to get to know people a bit...
Definitely. We all do.
blame.ignoreRevsFile
You only have to spend a few minutes poking around any of these corporations' custom Linux distros to see they are almost universally fucking awful. Consider, Synology ship many of their NAS type devices with BTRFS as the default/only option, as if that were a perfectly reasonable thing to do. And QNAP's engineers might be dangerously overconfident in their understanding of ZFS, implementing basic features in ways that seem more cargo-cult driven than informed by actual ZFS mechanics—and as if that isn't enough, recklessly extending it at a low level while continuing to call it ZFS because who wouldn't want to ride those coattails?
I suppose this is probably obvious, but I believe meaningful quality and capitalism are fundamentally incompatible—especially security, as in the real (i.e. non-theatre) version, because it tends to be obnoxious when done correctly, and the moment the marketing department gets to veto boring nerd shit, well, good luck. Just look at the so-called enterprise network security vendors like Fortinet and SonicWall, it's honestly mind-blowing what they get away with.
Nobody is individually dictating plastic use, and no truly high-level system exists to prescribe it: this is all largely emergent. I think we should try, and I think we need to hold ourselves and each other accountable, but ... what if this is just how it goes?
Even just comparing two consecutive iterations, I feel confident that any child who has learned the basic concepts would be able to reliably tell you which has more enclosed volume or surface area.
I will happily concede that the part you quoted could be quite unintuitive without the context of the article or the animation included in it. :)
I'm struggling to understand what is counterintuitive here. Am I missing something?
Also, it's still (always) going to be in the shape of a cube. And if we are going to argue otherwise, we can do that without invoking infinity—technically it's not a cube after even a single iteration.
This feels incredibly sloppy to me.