key

It says this works via the cli but the docker cli works by talking to the socket so don’t you still need socket access? With podman you just need to startup the user-level socket and set a few env vars and testcontainers works fine. I’m maybe missing the “why” it’s important to avoid direct socket access? Is it to avoid configuring SELinux?

Seems the pitch is just that it supports Apple specific bells and whistles like the emoji bar and beyond that has the stuff other terminals have. I use tilda and use that because it has a critical core feature I haven’t seen in other terminals: it appears full screen over all other windows with a keypress and disappears the same way. Since I use terminal heavily I don’t want to treat it as just another window but as a first class experience which tilda allows. I don’t really get why you’d make yet another terminal without some fundamental core functionality difference like that.

Code should be generated from documentation generated from code

The features described could be accomplished with a PIR motion sensor. I don’t see any reason they’d go to the expense of adding a camera, especially since infrared is better for operating in the dark like you’d expect for an alarm clock that’ll need to be able to wake kids at 6am in the winter.

98 was ok, ME sucked, XP was ok, Vista sucked, 7 was ok, 8 sucked, 10 is ok, 11 sucks.

It’s good the core language now has to have a reason before it deletes shit. Speaking of, when do they add full garbage collection and call it c+++?

I don’t see the humor. Maybe the punchline takes a slong time

Something being “old” is totally unrelated to whether it’s trendy. See: virtually every food and fashion trend.

I like yml. Clean to read, easy to use, supports comments.

Why are the alternatives all so defecatory…

This is the first I’ve even heard of “Concord”

Sounds like I’m not missing much

Never asked one. Answered my first one recently.

Plus, the license was only changed on a secondary branch. The default branch still has the MIT license. The text at the top isn’t “this is the license file you have open” it’s “the repo is licensed under this” so it’s correct behavior but bad UX. It would be most user-friendly to show repo license and then also say “this branch has an invalid license, beware shenanigans”

I think it’s in reference to this: https://news.microsoft.com/source/asia/features/taiwan-hospital-deploys-ai-copilots-to-lighten-workloads-for-doctors-nurses-and-pharmacists/

Looks like the benefit/headline comes from use of the entire software suite that provides access to a patient’s chart/medical history including checks for interactions/allergies. Most of that has nothing to do with AI but since it has a feature that generates a summary via a language model the whole thing is marketed as an AI Copilot.

Frankly AS did a lot of things well

Amazing how many replies to your comment completely miss the point

I’m missing something

I imagine they’d be eyeing things like having a partnership with patreon so patrons get access to an exclusive subreddit at a certain tier (with reddit getting some cut). Not saying patreon specifically would go for that but I imagine that type of monetization is what they’d be mostly considering. Or maybe a better example would be something in the realm of substack. Paying directly for access is hard to get people to go for without a third party with financial incentive to drive content.

MXRoute is about a decade old and based in Texas. It’s in that “unix philosophy” category of doing something well and stopping there so you won’t get them advertising their new crypto wallet or AI software on you. It’s mostly geared for more technical bring your own domain type of usage. If you’re wanting to use it more as a forwarder and want to store the history locally (or if you don’t email files) there’s a “lifetime” plan available.

That makes no sense. If you join b’ and b’’ into b then the external interface of b is the union of the external interfaces of b’ and b’'. The risk of conflicts between those two interfaces is minimal in the situation they described so no need for namespacing.

I expected the argument to be based on total effort to split then join the internal code compared to the context switching cost of splitting and then splitting again (with an appeal to agile vs waterfall). But this argument feels like they were either dealing with a language/stack with a broken module system that lacks an explicit separation of internal vs exposed or were just joining things strangely.

Expressing a general rule based solely on a specific situation is a disservice (irony intended).