One of my external screens is 4k and I haven't noticed any flickering. It's an Apple monitor though, so maybe that's the difference.

I've used ASUS 4K monitors on M2 and M4 machines without issues.

Crafting a custom config is right up on the list of things I enjoy. Right up there with creating new characters in video games that allow lots of customization.

I think that's just a standard readline functionality. It's available on bash, out of the box.

Absolutely and in zsh too, out of the box. It kind of blows my mind that people think they need all this additional bloatware for things which have always just worked (at least as far back as like 96 or so which is when I started using Linux) but it wasn’t new then.

Wait till people learn they can use rlwrap to get the benefit of readline even in things like commandline sql clients, which often lack this.

By that same logic, we don't need object oriented features in a language, because we have closures and can get the same functionality with a library.

Sometimes, having a language with a distinct syntax is nicer.

Typically, what's nicer is the absence of other features that interfere with the important ones.

For example, Prolog isn't a general purpose functional or imperative language: you can assert, retract and query facts in the automatically managed database, risking only incorrect formulas, inefficiencies and non-monotonicity accidents, but not express functions, types, loops, etc. which could have far more general bugs.

I like how classes escape closures but then dependency injection frameworks have to work around that because now it is hard to think of construction as passing arguments to functions in the correct order.

I am so glad LLMs eliminate all of that and just call functions in the right order.

> I am so glad LLMs eliminate all of that

When LLMs do something, it's always because everybody was already doing it.

The noise you see online about it exists exactly because most people don't understand and can't use DI.

No, LLMs like NextJS style injection as much as anyone.

There is nothing magical about topological sort and calling constructors in the right order, which is all DI is.

I dislike it a lot, it is exactly like any other construct that allows you to throw code at anything in a way that sucks (Haskell lens, optics, monad transformers).

It allows people to granularize the whole codebase to the point where you can’t do much about it. For most, they should just stick with functions, no one can build 100 levels deep function callstacks without it being cumbersome, but DI makes it a breeze.

I fell out of love with Java not because of the language, but because it got tied up with DI. Don't get me wrong, the allure of DI is really neat. Make all sort of interfaces and just call the function and it can be implemented by dozens of things. Perfect for a lot of use-cases. But then reality hits, and you eventually realize how complex the entire codebase is because it's pattern 1, pattern 2, p3, p4, etc... People are so obsessed with GoF patterns that they're not getting anything done other than spending the first month on a beautiful API.

Then I got into Python and people were building useful server APIs in a day.

Both have their place, but I think the problem with the first route is that EVERYTHING ends up with Spring or CDI and complexity overload even if only 1 thing will ever be "implemented".

> There is nothing magical about topological sort and calling constructors in the right order, which is all DI is.

Lol... That's exactly the kind of thing we call "magic" in software development.

Anyway, if your framework is entirely based on DI, everybody that uses the framework will use DI, and the LLMs will generate code for it that uses DI. That does not contest my point in any way.

Absolutely. In the same direction as some people I've heard along the lines of "Anything you can do with language X, can be done with assembler, just have some routines for that in your stash"

But that also bound you to your ISP in a way, because switching ISPs meant switching emails. It is better to have then separated.

ISPs could be required by law to allow the porting of email addresses, just like it happens with mobile phone numbers.

How would that work? The email address generally has the ISP's domain name in it.

Similar as it happens for phone numbers, where there is internal routing of phone calls between providers. A customer can be at a different provider with their phone number than the provider who “owns” the containing block of numbers.

I like to say if I could retire today; I would do the same thing I do now, just without a boss telling me to do it. I love what I do.

> Will the SECOND GROUP leak the source code? Is the SECOND GROUP telling the truth? Did the SECOND GROUP lie and have access to Ubisoft code this whole time? Was it MongoBleed? Will the FIRST GROUP get pinned for this? Who is this mysterious THIRD GROUP? Is this group related to any of the other groups?

This read to me like the end of a soap opera. Tune in tomorrow to find out!

While I understand what you're saying, it's pretty clear what is meant is "$X worth at the price they currently sell for". When there's a story about an object in space made of gold worth 100s of trillians of dollars, nobody believes it would really sell for that much if we captured it and mined all the gold; because the value of gold would plummet based purely on it's existence.

But I agree with you that it would be put into a court document as "it cost us this much" for the full amount, vs the amount they were likely to ever be able to sell (and can't, now that everyone got it for free, so the value is $0)

and yet, most people use this same measure for market capitalization of companies.

The market cap is unambiguous, a more correct estimate of "how much to buy all the shares?" is situational and would just distract from getting the point across.

Not really. If a company were to manufacture a substantially large number of shares out of nothing (no additional investment money or other value entering the company) then the market cap would not go up. It would stay the same and per-share value would go down.

The market is mostly reasonable about who can and will sell their shares. If a big mover does sell a lot of their shares at once, the price will fall. Most big holders will slowly sell off shares for this reason.

In the other direction, it’s also understood that the cost to acquire all shares of a company is more than the market cap of a company. This is why you see acquisition prices being significantly higher than the last funding round valuation, or public shares popping on announcement of an acquisition attempt.

> In other words, assume you are the second owner in all cases when it comes to certified medical equipment.

By that logic, _any_ company can effectively ignore the GPL constraints by just selling it to a reseller, first; one that they have a contract with to _not_ offer the source code when they re-sell it.

It is my understanding that, if I use GPL in my code, and I distribute it to someone that then re-distributes it to someone else... the GPL is still binding. I don't see why that wouldn't be the case with hardware using GPL'd software.

Would you disagree with this logic? You distribute GPL code to me on a dvd. I give that dvd to someone else. I have not made a copy of the source code, so copyright does not come into this. If instead I copied the dvd and emailed the iso to someone else I would be distributing and copyright comes into it.

The GPL binds _everyone_ who distributes GPL-covered work, including resellers. It doesn't matter if you made a copy of it, you are distributing it.

No it doesn't. It can not bind someone that has not agreed to it. A failure to agree might mean they are infringing on copy-right and is liable for damages, but it is wrong to say it binds everyone that distributes it.

They are distributing it without the right to distribute it. The only thing that allows them to distribute it is agreeing to the license/contract to do it in a specific way. If they don't do that, they don't have the right to distribute it. The person they got it from saying otherwise doesn't change that.

the license travels with the copy, it is what allows the copy.

if the license does not travel with the copy, then the copy is unlicensed and is a copyright violation. the license carries restrictions and grants rights. those aspects cannot be violated or the license ceases to exist.

you don't know what you are talking about, so stop guessing.

You've pretty much described the "what it is for" for a large percentage of industrial inventions. Clearly, however, the world would be worse off without many of them.

would the world be worse off if facebook and google had never existed?

I doubt it

The fact that there exist things created in the pursuit of money that are of questionable benefit to society... does not, in ANY way, negate the fact that there are MANY things created via the same motivation that are a benefit to society.

would the world be worse off if instead of google it had been blooglie or hooli that succeeded?

i don't know