jakeva

I'm just a lowly software engineer with a M.Sc. in Computing, but I didn't find that first paragraph particularly difficult to understand. The images further support it.

Naturally, to understand it you need to some understanding of the terms used but that's why they each link to their own wikipedia pages.

Expensive? Sure. Apple products come at a premium. But embarrassing? I'm not sure what that's even supposed to mean.

In recommending Fastmail

> Less opinionated of course, but you get more work done.

It seems like a harsh take to me. Putting aside the philosophy of work as a virtue, I have also had Fastmail for many years and it's not much different than Gmail or Yahoo or any other service I've had. What I like about Hey.com is that I feel supported in my decision to just fucking block things I didn't ask for, or don't remember asking for, or just don't want anymore. It invites me to block them.

but that's just me

That depends, doesn't it? Where did I get that BTC? Did I mine it in 2010, or did I buy it last month for $64k?

The fact the community felt the need to invent a "stablecoin" isn't terribly reassuring

This looks like a structure you'd find on a planet in The Outer Wilds

Forget window snapping for a dollar, try window snapping for free with Rectangle! https://rectangleapp.com/

And I agree. As a user and developer, I have no idea what the OP is on about

That was what I was talking about, yes.

That might be fine up to a point, but at a certain number it becomes a really bad idea to mail cash.

Maybe it isn't a ponzi scheme (I'm no expert) but even after looking up all the acronyms (and maybe especially after looking them up) this sounds like an episode of Schitt's Creek.

But let me try to actually understand.

You provide liquidity to a pool in exchange for a token and accumulate trading fees, while maintaining ownership of your capital.

Ok, first of all this sounds like a bank. But it's decentralized? So what happens when someone has a majority of governance tokens on your DEX?

This is the citation used by Wikipedia

https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/586023main_8-3-11_NAFCOM.pdf

Sure it's a bit different (especially if you're concerned with how it makes you feel) than, say, describing tectonic plates or the acceleration of a falling body due to earth's gravity but that doesn't make it not a real thing.

Quantum spin is one that gets me, or the uncertainty principle. It makes me very uneasy, but whether or not I'm comfortable is irrelevant. Those are to the best of our knowledge actual features of the universe.

Abstractions aren't really in the language of the pure sciences. Analogies, metaphors, etc can all serve to help explain but the speed of the propagation of information in this universe is very much defined as the velocity of light in a vacuum in a completely literal sense. There's no abstraction here. Maybe some confusion about what we mean by 'information' but I'm sure there are better resources if you want an afternoon rabbit hole.

... No. At least not where I work.

It is in the same sense that entropy is a physical thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory

Did you ask for a refund? I was a very happy Coda user for many years. You sound irrational and angry over a small subjective thing. I'd buy "horribly irresponsible" about your comment.

You have a lot of confidence in Prompt users. I see so much whining and complaining from otherwise seemingly erudite online communities such as HN, I'm inclined to believe people who know how to use SSH and are in possession of a mobile Apple device are incapable of maintaining a state of calm when confronted with a plurality of versions of the same app in the same app store.

Neither are you

To your second point, I remember when git was announced. I remember it was such a breath of conceptual fresh air over what I had been using (svn, mercurial) for me. I use it because it makes a lot more sense to me and how I work, and I've never worked on the linux kernel.

My microwave will not end up as a subscription platform. Maybe if I have to buy a microwave some day, but I don't know why I would have to do that. My microwave works fine.

Well, "to be fair", a phone's battery would die in a few days. Airtags are supposed to last for a year.

Why work so hard to pretend these things are the same and therefore deserve to have the same protections applied when it is obvious with a few moments of thought that they are completely different things?

I guess I haven't worked on a project important enough where the history is more important than the current state. Usually it's more like it might be useful to gain perspective by looking at the history, only to find it was a conflicted merge or the comment contained no useful info anyway ("Clean up", or "Fix this feature").

Even if it tried really hard to document the purpose of the change, I've rarely gotten more from a commit message than the content of the code changes in the commit.

In my experience squash messages combine the messages of the commits they consolidate. And the actual branch merged still exists, I don't buy hardlined stances against squashed merges.

> figuring out where to put the bike shed.

Anyway, the _real_ question is what color to paint the bike shed?

If someone near you is smoking, when you go home you aren't at risk of an ER visit in the next week. If someone near you has Covid, you are.

But it's not. Smoking isn't contagious.

That's a Radeon Pro 580, AFAIK this eGPU offering hasn't been updated in several years.

"Tech short" - I love it. I'm going to use that.

I can't speak for all jobs, but working as a software developer I have never been forced to interact with a dog

You might find tmuxinator (https://github.com/tmuxinator/tmuxinator) helpful. It doesn't do everything you describe, but I use it to spin up sessions configured per project.

I don't really want to get into it, those days are long behind me. But I couldn't help feeling dissatisfied with the content you linked.

  A simple example would be "My favorite author is always right because he says so in his latest book." The proof is merely a restatement of the premise. The sentence has begged the question.

Ok, but... why? It asserts that "begging the question" is misused, asserts a "real" meaning, but doesn't explain it. In what way is a restatement of the premise a form of "begging the question"?

I don't get it and just wanted to vent a little bit, putting my feelings about linguistic prescriptivism aside.