Ooo damn that sounds exactly what I’d like to try.

On the other hand I feel like I’m too old for this shit. My system works fine, I understand everything, and things rarely break and never in an unrecoverable way.

It’s been great almost since I started using it.

I started using it exactly when 4.0 came out, because that’s when I started using Linux and I thought learning 3 didn’t make sense. But 4 only got stable around 4.4 I think. The problem was that 4.0 wasn’t intended to be for end users yet, but distributions didn’t realize that and packaged it right away.

KDE didn’t repeat that mistake. 5.0 was almost completely smooth sailing (some applications took a long time to port and looked ugly, that’s it), and 6.0 was completely seamless.

If I had to guess, probably variable refresh rate

Relevant, maintained? Zero.

No it’s not, that’s why some smart people are starring by defining a more interesting concept: educability.

Huh, I found it to be so much easier to set up than nginx that I wrote the devs a little thank you message

That’s just completely wrong. Just try e.g. replacing the journald backend with the old text based syslog, and not only will you discover that is possible (which directly contradicts what you just said), it’s also easy!

The only thing I liked was arch’s pretty boot sequence … which I stared at for a while because SysV init was so slow.

systemd, not SystemD, or system d.

But yeah, wonderful talk!

Weird how he’s helping the far right in both cases.

• complying with Erdogan
• refusing to block fascists

Python is just glorified shell scripting

Absolutely not, python is an actual programming language with sane error handling and arbitrarily nestable data structures.

I don’t like the indentation crap

Don’t be so superficial. When learning something, go with the flow and try to work with the design choices, not against them.

Python simply writes a bit differently: you do e.g. more function definitions and list comprehensions.

Not only is there a UInt8Array, there’s also a bunch of others: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/TypedArray#typedarray_objects

Once git no longer depends on it, it’ll be gone from my system

Nah, gross. You need to set a bunch of global options to get sane behavior on errors.

Nushell is shaping up really really nicely, and it’ll actually stop executing if something fails! Even if that happens in a pipe! And it’s not super eager to convert between arrays and strings if you use the wrong cryptic rune.

Negative rings are a horrible proprietary liability.

That’s been clear from their inception, and this changes nothing.

Huh, I really like code like that. Having a multi-step process split up into sections like that is amazing to reason about actual dependencies of the individual sections. Granted, that only applies if the individual steps are kinda independently meaningful

To adapt your example to what I mean:

Baz do_stuff(int count, boolean cond) {
	Foo part1 = function1(count);
	Bar part2 = function2(cond);
	return function3(part1, part2);
}

This allows you to immediately see that part1 and part2 are independently calculated, and what goes into calculating them.

There are several benefits, e.g.:

1. if there is a problem, you can more easily narrow down where it is (e.g. if part2 calculates as expected and part1 doesn’t, the problem is probably in function1, not function2 or function3). If you have to understand the whole do_stuff before you can effectively debug it, you waste time.
2. if the function needs to be optimized, you know immediately that function1 and function 2 can probably run in parallel, and even if you don’t want to do that, the slow part will show up in a flame graph.

You can theme plasma and turn the effects off. Why isn’t that exactly what you want?

Doesn’t apply to the author here, so I don’t understand why you brought it up?

They accepted one that adds gender neutral pronouns in more than one place instead lol

That’s the last three words of the article. The author didn’t miss the connection either.

I always wonder when people repeat something from the article or ask a question that’s answered in the article: did you not read it or did you just want to start a discussion about this connection and are somehow constrained in the number of words you can write per day?