somat

It is also in the tool options control pane ( Pick layer or guide | move the selected layers).

Not going to say your expectation is wrong, I too almost always want the tool to operate on the selected layer rather than whatever layer has the pixels. But moving the layer with the pixels is not a bad default, it makes single click quick layer alignment moves possible.

Also, salutes, sort of unrelated, but your post made me look into quick selection based editing, And there are some good operations I have never used in there including alt to move the selection and ctrl + alt to move what is in the selection.

I still think the original behavior where it just saves as whatever extension was entered as the name was one of the more enlightened ways to operate.

I sort of get their point. The "Only one of these formats(the one you have never heard of) will save all aspects of your work, every other one will lose things, pick wisely." school of interface design is a massive footgun. But I like interfaces that get out of your way and just let you do things.

And I just had a bright idea, "forget the save dialog, just use the export dialog for everything" but it turns out the export dialog will not let you save to .xcf My disappointment is immeasurable. Why not gimp team? You dashed my last hope for a single unified interface. Somebody had to go out of their way to take that out.

Sqlite is probably overkill, you will probably never have actual relational data in an image format, But what it does bring to the table is a built in b-tree based storage, that is, you don't need to load the entire file into memory to edit it, in a prior age we would use Berkeley db for this. Sqlite in this role(a file format) is probably best thought of as a better superset of the berkleydb style key value store, more than one table per file and additional columns/indexes to keep metadata in.

Nothing wrong with XML, it is well understood, and the tooling is pretty good. But partial loads/edits is one thing it can not do.

The question I always have is "why would the formal verification be any more correct than the program it is verifying?", Note: not bugs in the verification engine, but the spec made for the program.

It is not a big deal, I think formal verification is a very useful tool to help one approach correctness, but let me explain myself. When a program is written it is trying to solve a problem, when it solves that problem correctly it has no bugs, and when it solves that problem incorrectly those are bugs. For complex problems it turns out to be very difficult(impossible) to solve them correctly. Why is there an assumption that the formal verification spec will be any more correct than the program itself? They are both trying to solve very complex problems.

I was trying to get a feel for this by reading through the sel4 git changes trying to figure out how many bug fixes were for the OS and how many were for the spec. No real conclusion unfortunately. because they almost always have to fix both at the same time. a bug found in the OS means you have a bad spec and a bug found in the spec means your OS probably has a bug.

Probably junk science, But I like this attempt to describe the electron via möbius twisted em fields.

https://quicycle.com/understanding-electrons/

Fair enough, But I am of the opinion that blocks of code and magic numbers should almost always be named, There is a lot of intent that is lost when the name is skipped.

It is also my main complaint about traditional math notation, They enjoy trying to make the notation as concise as possible, single letter symbols, embedded subparts, no names for anything. I understand that having super a tight concise notation is a massive benefit while in the flow state, thinking about the problem. But man it makes it rough for us casual math enjoyers coming in fresh to the topic.

I have it it in my .XCompose as

    <Multi_key> <c> <c> <c> <p> : "\xe2\x98\xad" #symbol representing proletarian solidarity between agricultural and industrial workers

Never used, but I laugh every time I see it there.

As a slightly related tangent, The compose key mnemonic interface for rarely used characters is pretty great, beats trying to remember alt codes.

Very cool demo, The curve does sort of go screwball when the control points are close together.

After playing with it some more. Not close together, but more side loaded. On reflection while many of these forms would be awkward to find in a drawing program, I think this is the source of the superior spiral the author likes.

I sort of wonder is there a "true" way to represent color? Would a intensity over frequency curve do it?

I probably lack the terminology to express myself properly, but color ends up being a very human thing, with a huge focus on primary colors(the colors that match the frequency response of the human eye) This is fine, we are human after all, but then I always feel color theory dives off the deep end, with color wheels and complimentary colors and triplets, etc. why? there is nothing physically cyclic going on. It never makes any sense to me that patterns based on it being cyclic would be any better than just picking colors. Any way, silly rant aside, if we wanted to define an objective physical color format, how would it be done?

Related? the Helwan HA-300. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helwan_HA-300

Summary: Egypt was going to develop an indigenous fighter in the 1960's based off of a mostly finished Spanish design by a post WWII otherwise unemployed Willy Messerschmitt.

I First heard of the project via a pretty good youtube documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqIpJuqvsWQ Messerschmitt's Remarkably Good Supersonic Fighter (Not A Pound For Air To Ground)

That is the fundamental of guerrilla warfare. The guerrillas can't win but can loose with very little cost while the cost for the established side to "Win" is an order of magnitude more.

It does rise an interesting question, how much can you blame a company for the crimes of it's customers?

The enlightened trick is to run ssh on port 443.

Yeah, It started bothering me enough that I recently put together a system where when a application detects a bad actor(a bot enumerating too fast, a random scan for vulnerabilities, etc) it notifies the firewall. Right now I am just shutting them down, But have plans for a honeypot/tarpit system, something real slow that takes up all their time. Something like "have fun at 300 baud"

Fair enough, Their headquarters however are in New York. An interesting case to be sure.

My guess is act as a wing in a forward flight mode, Sort of like a hang glider.

It sounds like it's more, New York wants to halt Kalshi's New york operation, however Kalshi is headquartered in New York, so this would stop all of Kalshi's operations.]

If New York has this jurisdiction(management of for profit incorporation's in New York) Kalshi would have to reorganize somewhere else to continue operations.

> who haven't wished they could edit their long commands in an editor rather than in the shell?

That's called a shell script. I don't know what others thresholds are but mine is about three pipelines deep(or 80 characters whatever comes first) and I am going to write that son of a gun as a script. Mainly to have something named in the filesystem I can edit, same with my sql queries, I have a whole directory of long awkward mostly one off queries, psql has the \e command which helps but again I would rather have something named.

Someone did fly a sort of balloonocopter, a quad copter that used inflated balloons as the cross arms, My disappointment is immeasurable that they were not allowed to use a lifting gas in it. I mean, it flew poorly anyway, but seeing as it is an unmanned vehicle, I would have used hydrogen as my lifting gas, and then when it had a catastrophic failure it would get a viking funeral for free.

As it is, there were some impressive metal fires during crashes, another win for lithium batteries.

Wow, there were a bunch of very interesting designs, Probably telling the winner was a very tradition design, but I love seeing wild stuff being tried.

The kite copter was my favorite, but the large rotor powered by small tip rotors was a close second.

I am surprised it was not a coaxial design(think the mars copter, but designed for a real atmosphere)

I always have a hard time understanding why anyone would want a dedicated markdown editor in the first place.

Obviously I am not the intended audience for them, but for me markdown is a fundamentally plain text format, Make nice looking plain text, and if you keep to certain well known patterns, you get a chance to run it through a typeset engine. Most of the point being the plain text. If the point were the typeset document, I would pick a better language.

As such, the ideal markdown editor is a text editor.

Surprised that works, I thought TLS was done entirely in process space.

I think I found it, My first thought was some sort of builtin ssl library backdoor, but it looks like you do some ld.preload shenanigans to inject a eBPF monitor. I am not sure exactly what the BPF brings to the table here. A convenient interface to intercept the accept() syscall?

See also: the sewing machine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sewing_machine

The 30 second version, sewing is very labor intensive and people started trying to make a sewing machine from about when manufacturing tolerances got tight enough to attempt the process. It still took about 100 years until machines that actually work well were invented, The genius bit that took so long is to not try and sew like a human does but to develop an inverted process that a machine can do. Honestly, despite being quite common at this point in time sewing machines still blow my mind when you consider the intricate process they are required to do with thread.

And a fun fact for free: Apparently patent cartels(cough MPEG LA) are not a new thing and Singer et al set one up in the 1850's to lock up the market on these marvelous machines.

That is mixing up a stable ABI vs a stable API.

OpenBSD is sort of the poster child here, They notoriously do not have a stable ABI, I would not want to try and ship closed source software on obsd, it would be an absolute nightmare. But their API is very stable (insert counterexample of the recent pledge change here)

An interesting side effect of obsd changing their ABI fairly often is they are good at it(add comment about this is because it is a small self contained system with few users here), in Linux land an ABI change is a nasty, messy, multi year process with much wailing and gnashing of teeth, for obsd, it just happens. To misquote Raul Julia in Streetfighter "For you, the day the ABI changed was the most important day of your life. But for me, it was Tuesday.

Companies hate raising prices, or more specifically customers hate it when prices are raised so companies don't like to do it. especially in foods. As such the go-to dance to keep up with inflation is to reduce the size while keeping the price the same as long as possible, when this becomes too noticeable the size is returned to original the price is increased and a big 20% more is added to the package. Repeat as needed.

Note that this is the most charitable interpretation where the customer deception is fairly minor(inflation happens, gotta sneak that price increase in there some how) Stuff like deceptive packaging(make it look like there is more than is actually present) punts it into the outright evil category.

AMD only pressured Intel into adapting the 64-bit extensions to the x86 architecture, The Intel native 64-bit system was the Itanium. Which they were hoping would break x86 and it's messy open legacy that allowed AMD to profit off it.

A question on terminology, I come from bsd world so prefer i386, amd64, ia64(the itanium) whereas the linux side appears to prefer x86 x86-64 Nothing wrong with it(it describes the architecture fine) but I assume that x86-64 is intel face saving propaganda.

A fair statement, but a stable ABI is only needed when you don't have the source. Seeing as most of the value proposition of Linux is that having the source is good, I find no fault in an unstable ABI.

Until you try and use a device in a moving bouncing vehicle, touchscreens and pads are infuriately bad, but that silly nipple, rock solid, works fine.

It is a niche use case but it made me a convert.

The quote I like is "The only intuitive interface is the nipple, every other one has to be learned"

So as long as an interface is consistent with prior interfaces I guess it is "intuitive"

I have never used mac, but it sounds like a good interface to me, not the .dmg one, that one is. weird. but where the application is self constrained in it's own directory. The traditional unix method where the parts go according to their function (/bin /lib /share and all the /usr variants) is fine when all the software is system software(promotes reuse) and sort of works when you have a sys-admin whose job is to incorporate third-party software as system software(central package systems also fit this category), But it really starts to stink when you have independent third parties packaging their own software.

Another way to think about it is what is the best hierarchy function/application or application/function