Look into Espanso as well. Works great, and is cross-platform.
735 karma · joined May 29, 2017
That a CS grad doesn't even know basic Git is telling not of their degree, but of the individual themselves - that they have no desire to learn beyond what's taught, and couldn't even be bothered to look into the requirements of the industry that they want to work in.
I argue that it should be a barrier to hiring, on that ground.
Why is why I absolutely love it.
It's the true hacker's spirit - about testing the frontiers of what's possible. Note what was said as well:
> This is really just a bit of fun and a way to write CSS in Go. I wanted to see if it was possible and it is with ease.
And I thought this was aspirational as well:
> CSS written in Pure Go. No JS builders, no preprocessors, no linters, no frameworks, no classes, no variables, no overrides, no plugins, no dependencies, no javascript, no templates, no bs, no nothing. Just Go.
Rust people are all about "let's rewrite it in Rust". I don't see why Gophers can't have their fun as well.
You know it is when it starts like this: "...All tabular knowledge can be stored in a single long plain text file. The only syntax characters needed are spaces and newlines."
That's fundamentally the simplest way of storing text. And it's nothing new, yet people have long ignored that simplicity for much more complicated ways of storing text.
And it only requires two tables - one table for blob storage with an indexable column; and another table where you're storing the metadata associated to the rows in the blob table.
For a small number of users and simple apps, it can be an ideal solution. I know, because I've tried.
---
This is an interesting read from the official site as well - '35% Faster Than The Filesystem' / https://sqlite.com/fasterthanfs.html
...Spoken like a person who's never coded anything meaningful or serious, if you can't even gauge the complexity and man-hours needed to create (much less port) high-quality packages between programming languages.
It's no different than how smart human beings can still be brainwashed/indoctrinated/programmed into believing anything (whether by 'the government' or malicious actors or manipulative sociopaths).
If boilerplate is cause for you to dislike the language, fine.
But your unnecessarily strong language "Go is opinionated and it's opinion is wrong", "What Go did is not reasonable", "I have a specific hatred for Go" speaks more about you than Go.
Go's choice of trade-off much was practical and reasonable, engineering-wise.
Your opinion is entirely wrong.
I am in part drawn to software development and programming, because it's logical and comparatively rigid (at least programming itself is, if you take away the environment/ecosystem/cults that develop around the idiosyncracies of different languages). I find programming very far from absurd.
I am therefore surprised to see software programmers claiming that software development is absurd - and that woodworking could somehow be less so.
The grass is always greener on the other side. (And I still can't accept that programming itself is absurd.)
I cite how science permits plausibility upon evidence. This is in contrast to OP's wishful dogma, where anything not presently known must be fantasy/sci-based and implausible - which is not how science works.
You argue from the position that Martians 'must not be real'.
Why is your conclusion any better than those who argue that Martians could be real?
Science works upon evidence. If so:
a) there is some evidence to support the existence of prior life on Mars;
b) it is not the scientific case that life on Mars is impossible/implausible
So why do you so strongly hold on to your own dogma, and chastise the conclusions of others as mere 'fantasy' and 'sci-fi'? You are no smarter than everyone else, by merely being contrarian.
Even common names can have non-standard readings. Native Japanese folks mix up readings for names, and need kana sometimes. Personally, I've never yet encountered any Japanese names beyond extremely common ones that I've not at least become suspicious whether I'm reading them correctly.
So I don't think ChatGPT's bad in that regard, if it can at least offer a few possible suggestions. The readings of names can be so damn arbitrary.
There's a reason why civil courts and judges are often given leeway to decide against the reception of expert testimony - because not all experts really are so. Especially in something like psychology - which isn't really science per se - you'd expect the courts to be more guarded against possible quacks.
Just because you owe your life to psychologist help, doesn't mean that psychologists are all acceptable.
You also didn't read between the fine lines - a satirical document had passed the senate as possible law by "unanimous approval". Which means that the lawmakers who voted in favour didn't really read or consider what was being passed. That's even more embarassing.
And let's not be mistaken - the lawyer was negligent. Observe the grandstanding of the boss, however:
> Vardag said: 'The young lawyer who made the slip with the drop down menu on the new divorce portal is one of the best of the next generation. Not sloppy, not careless. Totally committed, extremely able. That young lawyer, our brilliant young lawyer, genuinely needs support to deal with the trauma of it all.
...Is all that posturing necessary? "...one of the best of the next generation", really? A "brilliant" lawyer making this sort of mistake, which could have been avoided had the lawyer actually paid attention?
If the junior was mistaken, there is no need for this sort of grandstanding. Negligence need not to be glossed over, or made as if it was not.
It really opened my eyes to the fact that most of what you value or hold dear will have no value to others, especially if it can't be resold. As a practical minimalist (rather than a strict one) it's informed my personal practices a fair bit.
There are ways to 'humanize' music, by use of messing around with rhythms/syncopation, velocity, distortion, etc. Not all of it is intentioned - quite a number of stuff is automated. Yet it feels no less 'human' - you would be a fool to think that human-created music must have "intentions behind every beat and every tone". That's not how it works - as any musician, arranger or composer can attest to.
I suspect that AI music can write music far better than even humans, and more consistently than with AI (visual art), given how music tends to be repetitive and more mathematically consistent in that regard.