gnull

The problem I see is: a lot of things that non-modal, GUI interfaces use mouse for can be better done with a keyboard.

For example, all sorts of drop-down menus and icons that you click on to launch programs. This kind of interface is inherently synchronous: the computer suggests, you pick. To me, it's way more natural to asyncronously type in what I want without having my attention hijacked by whatever suggestions my machine has (sometimes those actually make me forget what I was trying to do in the first place). I love the related metaphor ESR came up with in his Unix Coans [1].

[1]: http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/unix-koans/gui-programmer....

It's not unfair in general. If you're not actively seeking money and raises, who said you should get them? This frustrates me as a kind of kindergarten mentality, "I was 'good' therefore I deserve good things back". No, you don't; learn to protect your interests.

What I think is unfair is that a lot of companies would never admit this adversarial attitude towards employees. Most of them will bullshit you with "we are a family" and whatnot.

I worked in a company (20-30 people, Russia) where salaries were secret and not the same for everyone, but the company openly admitted it and actually encouraged employees to ask for more money (and the manager could ask for more results in return). "Everything's negotiable" was a phrase I heard a lot from them. It was my first job, love that place.

As I understand, If you make a hole in hydrogen tank and set it on fire, it will just burn (don't try to do this at home).

Naked mugshots can be a solution in some places. Some write that in Russia police can beat the confession out of you, keep you for a couple of weeks in jail until the visible wounds heal and then send you to court together with the confession you signed.

Naked mugshots will not help in this specific situation, because the court is corrupt together with cops and they will just ignore the procedures. But if I had a choice, I'd prefer a naked mugshot to torture (and of course, they can torture you without leaving any traces; with electricity, for example).

Not all cops will cooperate with the corrupt ones. And if some of them want you to disappear, they will need to hide it from the others; procedures are intended to make this harder.

This is a good reason to make it mandatory to publish mugshots.

You can make mugshots visible only to some trusted list of human right activist organizations. This is kind of a compromise between convict's safety and privacy.

But I don't think of it this way. I come from a different background (a less developed region of a less developed country), and we set the bar lower where I'm from, because we have more vital problems.

I consider factory farming inhumane, it's bloody concentration camps and they shouldn't exist.

But small, local farms where we take care of the animals (no sadism, animals walk on the grass, play with their babies and whatnot) and let them live until certain (not too old) age are fine. Taking the lives of other animals to get food is normal. And even after we have good substitutes for meat, I would keep some small amount of farms to keep people used to killing animals for food, and take kids there for excursions to show that it's normal.

(There was a Danish TV show where they were showing naked adults to children and let them any ask questions; to make kids used to thinking that naked body is normal and there's nothing shameful about it. I think we should have the same thing but with killing animals.)

> Even if you've grown up seeing this, I don't see how you can describe slitting the throat of something that doesn't need to or want to die as humane.

I guess, my perspective is more about what you have to do rather than what you want to do. The animal may not want to die at the age of 2-3 years, but sorry, it has to; it's better than nothing and it's way better than what animals get in wildlife. Life is not a carte blanche where you can order anything you want.

Growing those animals for food helps sustain their species. If we don't get their meat, who's going to pay it?

> It's even more indefensible when there's many meat alternatives now.

I think something like this map [1] can explain such a difference between your and my perception of this. You sound like a person with ~2 points on "Survival vs. Self-expression scale". Am I right? The place where I'm form has -0.7 points (yes, it's minus there).

[1]: https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSNewsShow.jsp?ID=428

Yes, I would. If an animal needs to be killed, this is one of the most humane way to do this. Where I'm from, a lot of farm animals die more painful deaths (nobody can afford electric shockers there).

This is one of the least painful ways to die. If I had to die and wanted a painless death, I'd choose being stunned with electricity and not feeling anything.

> above is obviously very cruel

Argument "it's obvious" works when something is obvious to the person you're talking to. In this case, it's obvious only to you.

And if "it's obvious" is your best argument, it usually means you don't understand very well why you came to that conclusion. Think about it.

> cruelty of the above is only ignored because it's normalised through culture and tradition

Yes, and it's not normal to you because of your culture and tradition. People's views are formed by culture and tradition, yes, there's no discovery here. If you grew up on a farm and saw animals getting slaughtered since your childhood, this idea wouldn't be so shocking to you.

Pigs are stunned, hanged by their back legs and have their throats cut. What's the problem?

If this is inhumane, how should humane slaughtering look like according to you?

A great discovery for me was that Calibre can convert to KEPUB (subset of EPUB tailored for Kobo readers).

[1]: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.15/process/stable-kernel-...

(a) try to reduce the number of people who engage in risky sex—through changing people's views, different upbringing and whatnot;

(b) try to mitigate the consequences of their behaviour—by subsidizing testing for infections and treatment.

Note that there's no dichotomy here.

I don't know if there's a good, reliable way to do (a); also, some people can be against it for ideological reasons. But (b) in the meantime is straightforward to implement and is known to be efficient. Why not implement (b) and make it work it while we are arguing about (a)?

> maybe the “conservatives” are correct to be “prejudiced” against it?

Conservatives should not be stigmatized for supporting (a), this is not prejudice, they can have the view they have on sex. But I don't see a single reason, except prejudice, that can make you go against (b), which is simply practical.

(Beautiful photos!)

It saddens me to see how current Russian government (de facto Russian government, I should add) uses the achievements of the past to promote their own agenda though.

Is there any evidence of this?

I can easily imagine authors making that decision voluntarily.

They did it in Soviet Union at some point to the intellectuals who questioned their ideology.

For the victim of killing, there's no difference between "being killed" and "dying". It's not that your life gets less valuable or your pain gets eased if you die from natural causes. And eventually we all die, death itself is not abnormal, then what's the big deal about killing?

Killing is not a tragedy. Dying early if you could live longer is a tragedy.

A couple of centuries ago violence, wars and killing were a way bigger part of human lives, and it has been like that throughout the whole history.

I don't like glorifying violence, but I want to acknowledge that it's a natural part of life. Some can afford not to deal with it, some cannot.

I believe there's more romanticizing in this statement than evidence for it.

Ideas are subject to natural selection as much as individuals are. And for an idea to win this natural selection, it's not necessary to be useful for our species. Some ideas spread will because they give their carriers advantage over other people, like Science; some because they just resonate with our minds well and spread fast, like viral videos from Tiktok. Romanticizing of Spartans could easily fall into the latter category.

I agree that being able to defeat (and possibly kill) your enemies was important for us throughout history, but I doubt that being a stereotypical Spartan helps one do that. In the next parts of the linked post on Spartans, acoup says that they weren't as strong army as they were believed to be. Their greatest strength was their badass fame advertized by Socrates.

Just put something like

  <Multi_key> <semicolon> <parenright>  : ""
  <Multi_key> <t> <u>                   : ""
  <Multi_key> <t> <d>                   : ""

Yes, you have to put all the emojis you want there manually, but I use very few of them so it works for me.

EDIT: HN removed the emojis from my snippet. The double quotes there contained smiling face, thumb up, and thumb down.

Agree 100%, this is the only issue I ran into using Wayland (Sway) with different DPI monitors.

I only want to stress that the impact of this issue is very limited—at least for me. Most of the apps that I use run natively on Wayland and scale perfectly: Firefox (with some extra setup), Telegram Desktop, Alacritty, all GTK and KDE apps.

The apps that do get blurry are the ones that are made by big companies for which Linux experience is not the first priority (thus they don't care about native Wayland support). Zoom, Chromium, Google Earth, Discord, Steam, Skype. I don't use them much, and when I do I try to keep them on my big (non-scaled) monitor, and it works fine.

  let var: Vec<u32>;              // this one is immutable, will be initialized later
  {
    let mut var_;                 // mutable
    …                             // initialize var_ with some mutating code
    var = var_;                   // now move var_ to var, initializing the latter
  }

Maybe they expect you to come up with a solution right there. This way they can see that you're curious and trying to solve a problem even if you don't know its solution beforehand. (And by looking at your attempts they your mind is even working in the right direction. They could give you small hints and observe how you process them.)

I never conducted interviews myself, but some years ago my supervisor asked me for advice on interview problems for his interns. He wanted something that will help spot a person inclined to algorithmic thinking, but the job was not 100% algorithmic, he needed programmers. If he asked me the same today, I would have advised him to look at these xor search problems.

Do you do something applied like programming? I think problems (and solutions) similar to this one should be easy to find in TCS.

The problem you quote seems valuable to me for its insight, it shows that you can reduce certain search problems to algebraic calculations which are easy to do. I think this is useful concept to understand, and a good mental exercise to try coming up with it yourself (even if you don't apply it directly).

Could it be that even if you're a programmer who will never have to solve exactly this problem, you could still use the intuition you gain from this problem to solve others (or understand existing solutions you need to implement)? Could it be that you indirectly used the knowledge you have of this solution without being aware of it?

I don't know if fetching webpages and rendering them in terminal is a good idea. You can always use a terminal-based browser like w3m to open them. And I'm afraid most of such pages will be cluttered with animated popups and sidebars, filtering which will require some heuristics. Don't know it's worth it. But this is still something to look into in the future—at the moment there are more urgent things to do in Kalina.