funcDropShadow

You think enforcing the one true rights model to everyone is more empowering? We have obviously different definitions.

Why is X11 unsandboxable? A similar but reverse approach to Xwayland, something like waylandX could be used to be part of the overall sandbox approach to run untrusted applications. That would have the advantage that the severe restrictions and feature degradations of wayland are only applied to those untrusted sandboxed applications, not everything.

... while introducing lot's of other jank that was solved before.

But wayland merges more components into one server than X11 did. Therefore, there is a need for more wayland server then there was a need for X11 servers.

I think, I am similar. I've discovered source minimaps when they came out first almost 20 years ago. And I loved the sense of spatialness they added to the code .

Whether the CPU is busy because of a loop with a sleep depends on the ration of the sleep time and the time to perform the rest of one loop iteration. Doing stuff in a loop iteration that takes 1min and then adding a ms sleep will not drop CPU usage a measurable amount.

Can you recommend any good resource on how to start seriously with barefoot running or walking?

If maximizing value is not the goal, then why should Marxism redefine value in a counter-intuitive way?

Btw, "Labor" cannot be in charge, outside the UK at least, because Labor is an abstract concept. In Marxist societies people are in charge that pretend to have the laborers best interest in their hearts. But as they "Some are more equal than others."

Universities are full of people with Linux desktops with public IPs and that are printing all the time: papers, their own and other's.

No, persistent print queues can be implemented without cups running as super-user.

> This was the beauty of Karl Marx's thinking. He postulated that the best way to measure value is in the amount of human labor that goes into the output.

This is indeed the most beautiful insight of Karl Marx that I ever read. This predicts perfectly why all socialist/communist economies collapse. They value inefficiency. The more work is needed to build a product, the more valuable it is --- according to Marx. That is one of the most fundamental error in his theories.

Fractional scaling is not the alternative.

This idea of scaling graphics up and down instead of rendering at the display native resolution with size measurements in dpi-independent units was so bad. I understood it to be a neat trick, when the first retina displays were relased. But everything afterwards is just awfull.

I am a former fan of extreme static typing, think Haskell higher-order type-classes fan. So, yes, I understand the value. But everything you build is very brittle in the face of changing requirement. When requirements seem to change because developers are still learning the domain, that is fine. This churn is unavoidable, true. But, if you have business people tell you, you have to pass some additional information through your system without doing anything to it, and you answer, I have to refactor all my type definitions, then you have some explaining to do.

The value of static typing depends very much on the application domain. In a closed-world application domain where you can be reasonably sure that you know upfront all entities, their attributes, their valid ranges, etc, static typing is extremely valuable. That applies to domains like compilers, system software, embedded systems, and more.

In open-world domains, like business information systems, static typing is often an obstacle to fast adaptation.

Whereas immutability provides value in every domain, unless the performance requirement cannot be met.

Well, there is quite some difference between what the agile manifesto describes and what the 5000-page Agile Handbook (TM) of some international consulting firm describes.

But it reduces the amount of safepoint requests by doing more in parallel to the working application.

That is one of the reason why we should still have swap space.

Or /tmp should be a tmpfs as it is on most current Linux distributions.

> But the hard part needs to be regular computer science and the AI comes second.

Yes, indeed. The AI could be used to prefilter the list of warnings generated by static analysis to reduce the amount of false positives. To achieve that an AI could use the history of the projects static analysis results to find likely false positives. Or an I could propose a patch to avoid a warning. If it is automatically compiled, passed to the test suite and the whole ci pipeline, it could reduce the manual effort to deal with finding of static analysis tools.

But leaving out the static analysis tools would loose so much value.

Read the source, Luke.

Really, read the only two words Elon Musk commented about this topic [1]. This article is completely overblown, borders on deceit in my opinion.

[1]: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1830390502836854925

Less middlemen means fewer fees to pay.

Asynchronous is a better characterization than offline.

Why offline? You go to your bank web page, login, enter the recipients account information (EBAN) and press transmit. Or you have that automated from SAP or a number of other software products.

This setup eats your freshly created files if you forget to run the rsync command before switching to the other computer. Not so nice. Unison [1] can avoid that problem by having some state on each side. Therefore, it always knows whether a file was just created on machine A or whether it was deleted on machine B.

Everything else is almost the same with Unison compared to rsync. There is no P2P overlay network, everything goes through ssh. It uses the rsync algorithm to optimize the transfer of changes. It is run at specific times, not always in the background. Therefore, you know when synchronization is happening and when it is finished. Unison also has rules to map different path on each side and you can exclude by path, filename, and suffix, etc.

[1]: https://github.com/bcpierce00/unison

GP said

> Especially because Clean Code doesn’t actually seem easier to read or indeed maintain

If that is true, then there is indeed no point in applying Clean Code. But I disagree with GP that Clean Code leads automatically to bad performing code. That depends on your language and execution environment. A JVM is very good at effectively removing vtable indirection if they are not needed at runtime.

The article doesn't claim to have an answer for everything. The article argues that tiny i.e. micro libraries are a almost always a bad tradeoff.

Do you have some recommendations or references about getting data properly out of Excel. I usually avoid using Excel alltogether if possible. But, obviously that is not always an option.

Nobody is forcing you to buy a computer.

Nobody is forcing you to live under a roof.

Nobody is forcing you to eat.

Counter example: blender. It may not be winning in video editing, but it has serious market share in 3d rendering. Different players are investing money in it and extend it with their own stuff.