zaep

This is a rare instance where I think Wikipedia is plain wrong. Maybe the process to have multiple pages renamed is onerous? The thing in the original post I've usually heard to be called spinners, while this input element, which I'm not sure I've ever even seen, doesn't seem to have its name justified in any way on the Wikipedia page either. I can't really tell why it'd desperately need a concise name either, it's basically a numeric input with extra controls on it? anyhow, spinners spin and those spin so they're spinners, I won't hear otherwise.

I don't know, I think you have a point that aesthetic preferences are subjective and shifting. But there is also all-caps monospaced text with emdashes in it on the site; just an example of something I think would not turn into a fashion at any point because it just looks silly (subjectively, to me at least). Thus I don't think the antipathy of people towards these llm-generated landing pages is entirely based on associating it with other LLM sites, there is at least an element of it clearly not being through as much human review and interaction as a hand-crafted landing page necessarily would be.

I don't own a car, and I found the article mildly interesting, but I can't get over the sentence

> Our last three cars, the eldest of which was from the 2017 model year [...].

Is it common to buy three cars in let's say 10 years? That seems like a large amount of spend (afaik cars depreciate in value rather quick?) and -- barring accidents -- a really short time to have to replace something as sturdy as a car; If I get less than three years out of a phone it feels like a waste and it feels like the main barrier for phone longevity (besides batteries, which are replaceable) is security updates.

IDK, since I don't see any comments on it, it must not be that strange, it just struck me as odd.

Working in satellite simulation, where we end up with complex harnesses (cabling) and where I don't really know the nitty-gritty of how the sausage is made by the engineers creating them, I was really curious for a moment; but alas, it's an AI thing.

FWIW, my quick impression is that takes reasonable concepts and tries to formalize them into a framework; I can see potential benefits, I've certainly asked in a claude code session for it to have a look at pipeline so and so and figure out the issue, but I'm not really convinced by this at first glance either. Both setup-cost and token cost seem like downsides.

Nobody seems to have (yet) mentioned the most recent (rn) commit [1] dated 2099. I can't really figure out where the date came from, at the source noted in the commit I find no '2099', I can't see it being a joke, if it's a bug it's not obvious to me..

I'm sure I won't be the only one curious, please enlighten me.

[1]: <https://github.com/EnriqueLop/legalize-es/commit/424cbc96507...>

I think that's not viable. To make that work you'd have to keep up with the kernel for years, probably more than a decade, to reach some kind of critical mass and become influential enough to be capable of separating from it and driving decisions that run counter to it. That's not even to mention the loss it would be to have these capable teams (rust proponents for the kernel and extremely experienced maintainers and contributors who want nothing to do with it) working in parallel at best and in partial opposition at worst, when they could work together.

There is a (to me very surprising) typo in the section 'Focus on what matters.' where the AI summary states "... 11 out off[sic] 100 products ..."

I don't think I've ever encountered a typo in any of the LLM output I've seen, seems like the exact sort of thing an LLM would be more or less perfect at. Am I wrong to take this as an indication that this text is actually written by a human as a concise marketing example?

Another in the same vein is vim-fugitive by tpope [1]. I have never used magit, only a Neovim plugin claiming to resemble it, but I would assume fugitive is much the same (and quite wonderful from my experience).

[1]: https://github.com/tpope/vim-fugitive

oh sick, thanks for letting me know

    Location: Germany (Bremen / Hamburg)
    Remote: flexible (Europe/Berlin time ideally)
    Willing to relocate: likely not, perhaps within Germany especially back to Berlin
    Technologies: Rust, Go, C++, Linux, WASM, SBOM
    CV: https://hensel.dev/about/cv
    Email: see CV

I'm a software developer about to finish my MSc (CS) looking what interesting work might be out there.

I am very happy with Zola. Every SSG has its own shortcomings, for Zola I was initially bothered by lack of 'proper' footnotes and the insistence on having to have frontmatter, but I've yet to feel that I cannot do something really. The docs can be a touch confusing imo, but they're written with care.

I'm sure you're right in what you say, but this is not the reason modern acrobat is slow. I'm sure you could build a modern and accessible app that starts and loads the requested PDF snappily to show it, but acrobat will also (iirc) have some cloud integration now for storage and a bunch of the features they offer are gated behind some sort of subscription, the status of which I would guess is loaded on startup, probably along with a bunch of other stuff.

Can it possibly be true that 60+% (she writes "nearly two-thirds") of women in STEM have this character as an influence? I'm only barely aware of this media property and here in Europe I feel our Media is fairly "American" still, does this show have such a global reach? I found, for instance, that the X-Files movie only had 4.2% of its revenue internationally, so I think its not such a popular property outside the US. How would even 10% of chinese female STEM workers hear of this character?

I believe she is citing the PDF she links, where only an archived version is available right now. It seems to be a US-only study, although I don't see any explanation of where participants were from.

TLDR: https://github.com/ja-he/dayplan is a TUI calendar planning/time tracking tool I made.

Early in my University time I always felt most productive when sketching out my day in Google calendar, then keeping up with that plan and if necessary, adjusting it. For a long time I was envisioning something that would allow me to follow that workflow but without the browser window or telling Google my plans, ideally in the terminal, ideallyer something as nice to use as Vim.

When I sat down to learn Go I decided to make that my project and, although messy, it's become my longest-running (though sporadically developed) personal project.

Realistically, I wouldn't suggest anybody use this except to try it, but for myself it is really useful and a fun project to tinker with sometimes.

for anybody who is wondering, the typst web app is a smoother user experience, having had to use overleaf for some smaller projects only, ive found it slightly janky, sometimes, probably owed to how slow and strange latex compilation can be. I'm sure the typist web app lacks some cool project management features that overleaf may offer, since it's a more mature platform, but with how much nicer typst is compared to latex, I think any shortcomings the web app may have are offset by that. but for sufficiently technical people collaborating via git is imo nicer than any web app.

The TIL-framing is not integral to writing and publishing little snippets. You can always omit a framing and stick only to the information.

> One condition of all CC licenses is attribution.

There's probably a distinction that I'm not aware of but this is not true for CC0 (as stated also in the FAQ for CC0 on this same website).

I'm working on an MIT-licensed time-tracking tool in my spare time and I'm hoping somebody (in a "this is not legal advice"-capacity at least) can enlighten me on licensing here:

If I am understanding the AGPL-3.0 correctly (and assuming that the format is also under the license), I could NOT add an "export to Markwhen" feature to my project without then being forced to convert it to AGPL-3.0. Is this correct?