I had the same bluetooth issue on windows 11. It stopped working. I didn't even have the option to see the bluetooth setting. All my peripherals stopped working and I had to bring out the cables. Then one day after a month or so it was fixed.
> If you use neovim inside a terminal you are just straight up using an inferior product, with less features and more problems
I use neovim like that and the selling point for me is that it's 1 less program that I have to install and learn with the added (crucial) benefit that it doesn't update on its own, changing UI and setting that I was used to.
>benefit that it doesn't update on its own, changing UI and setting that I was used to.
This exact thing remains true though, you are using the exact same neovim, but instead of it being wrapped inside a totally bizarre piece legacy software, it is rendered inside a modern graphical frontend. It looks mostly the same, except it handles fonts better, it is independent of weird terminal quirks and likely faster. There is no dowside.
And again, your point about using TUI stuff because of the input method or whatever is just false. Neovide has the exact same input method, yet has a complete GUI. Using the terminal makes no sense it all, it is the worst neovim experience there is.
I recently got into neovim and some things that the author mentions can be found in pre-built configurations like kickstart by default. E.g when hitting "g" I also get a popup with the available follow up keys alongside the final keybind's result. Grepping text provides a preview window with the context of the line that was found
Τhe melancholy of resistance is a book that shaped my understanding of conflict and apathy. I am happy this man got the Nobel, he is a tremendous writer.
I am a FE developer and I believe that we collectively have a loser's mentality when dealing with CSS.
In my mind, SCSS + CSS modules + maybe a processor tool is an rock solid and modern set of tech that produces excellent results and most importantly moves styling off the main thread. It makes sense to use it, but we don't. FE interviews even for senior+ roles are JS/React/system design questions. Nothing about CSS and I get it. Why interview for something you don't use internally?
I recently read something that stuck with me, which was about micro front ends but I think applies in more cases than this: "it doesn't solve a technical problem but an organizational one".
There was an excellent reddit discussion on the pros and cons of tailwind and it boiled down to "it's really hard to enforce CSS guidelines for teams of multiple people". Tech leads didn't want to monitor how 10 or 20 or 50+ different FE developers wrote CSS and opted for tailwind so that everyone wrote the same, even if that meant multiple inline classes pasted on each element. I find this reluctance to enforcing guidelines weird, considering at $WORK we have multiple confluence pages and internal documents about React and Javascript guidelines and I have seen similar documents in previous work places. Would it be really different to apply the same mental paradigm for CSS?
Of course, all this is under the hindsight knowledge that HTML and CSS have evolved in recent years to be truly powerful and versatile. I get the technical decision to go all in on JSS and React 5 years ago. I don't now.
It seems to me, that many FE devs don't even know CSS these days. Rather just tack on some "ready" made component found on NPM or some component library. When it actually comes to using CSS to fix something about part of a page or part of a component, I often see non-responsive ways of doing that, badly tested across browsers, breaking at some width of the viewport, etc.
In my view CSS is essential. Not knowing CSS at least somewhat well is a huge obstacle in producing high quality frontend work. It's like being a carpenter, but simply not knowing one important aspect of wood, or not being able to use a specific tool to work with wood, lets say a tool to smooth surfaces. CSS is part of the medium you work with as a FE engineer. It is unfathomable to me, how a FE engineer can not know this stuff well. If some FE engineer is reading this, and feels some impostor syndrome: Yes, if you don't know your medium and tools as least in the basics, then you should feel like an impostor.
I see broken responsiveness very often. Of course in almost all websites, that rely on JS to display what is essentially a bunch of static texts.
If I was interviewing for a FE position, and really had to go through the circus of asking interviewees code questions, I would definitely include a minimum of CSS knowledge there. Basic things like how they would scope their CSS to specific elements or classes of elements and how they would prevent their styling to bleed into other stuff. Or how they would set up a theme with just CSS. Not questions expecting them to write CSS on a whiteboard, of course. Just testing their basic understanding.
> In my mind, SCSS + CSS modules + maybe a processor tool is an rock solid and modern set of tech
"my set of non-standard tools and preprocessors is superior to these guys' non-standard tools and preprocessors" is not a good argument.
> I find this reluctance to enforcing guidelines weird
Because CSS doesn't lend itself to any enforcement. All the tools that appear around it includng those you like like SASS and "some processing" don't appear because people don't understand something or can't enforce something.
> Of course, all this is under the hindsight knowledge that HTML and CSS have evolved in recent years to be truly powerful and versatile.
Indeed. And many of these features have been made available across all major browsers only in the past two or so years.
No one is going to rewrite everything from SASS or CSS-in-JS just because some features now exist in vanilla CSS.
I never said we have to rewrite existing apps and I explicitly mention that these improvements are recent. You come off as overly sarcastic and irritating in an otherwise civil thread.
CSS modules are really enough - there's no need to overthink it any further.
I'm currently in a project where my first task, spanning several months, was to clean up after the previous guy. The main issues in styling were misguided attempts at sharing styles implemented via breaking encapsulation.
If you have a workplace (not just a manager or even a set of them but an entire organization or subset thereof) that is allergic to punishing people then it's easier and less headache inducing to just tell everyone to use a particular framework with a set of customizations to maintain some semblance of unity. This is true if large teams and small "teams" that are overburdened with lots of disparate projects.
Should they be allergic to punishing people? No, but it be how it do.
> I find this reluctance to enforcing guidelines weird
It's worse than that. All the hype in design has been about creating a global design language, and enforcing it over all your teams for more than a decade now. All the hype has been on centralizing the design team, moving it away from the developers for some years. All the hype has been on tools that claim to enable reusing and distributing that work...
And yet everything is done in a way that developers have to do everything themselves and don't get to coordinate with each other.
(Honestly, I'm settling on the opinion that non-developing application design is a scam all around.)
I am against nuclear energy because my government is deeply corrupted and give contracts to their friends. They also appoint unqualified people to the highest positions to award them big salaries and the results are catastrophic tragedies with tens of casualties each time. I don’t trust them to operate the railroads, why would I trust them to operate a nuclear facility?
This is the main reason why I am, generally speaking, against nuclear as a universal solution.
A question for pro-nuclear folks: Would you be okay with having a highly corrupt low HDI country building nuclear facilities (conversion and deconversion, enrichment, power plants) next to your borders?
This is similar to the reasoning of Austria vehemently opposing nuclear reactors to be built in neighbouring countries, even if downstream on the Danube, even if 200 km from their border.
The latest decision (although on the surface, not on an environmental issue like the article is about, but on state aid measures - but actually not the real reason for Austria's opposition):
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62...
So, I believe, yes, low HDI countries with high corruption do have the right to build nuclear facilities. This is not like a combination of low HDI and high corruption index awarded by some international organization has the approval rights to such questions of sovereignity. There is a whole range of special regulation regarding who can build nuclear stations and under what conditions, with a special agency to ensure the safe use (IAEA) - that should be the only criteria for letting nations build nuclear stations, not corruption, HDI or how rich the countries are.
Slovenia has been running a reactor for a good long while without any problems and it's extremely safe. So from our POV, it's much more likely that Austria would prefer everyone around them to import Austrian energy instead of producing their own.
Also, Austria makes no sense. It opposes a new reactor in Slo being built but that means that the current one will just keep getting its life extended. Clearly it's not about safety.
So you would oppose an entire, globe-spanning branch of deeply necessary technology (clean energy) with all its vast opportunities for improvement, innovation, and management under all kinds of more responsible means, because the government functionaries in your specific part of the world can't get their moral shit together (and given what you describe, wouldn't be able to do it well no matter what kid of large-scale energy is put into their hands)?
They're concerned about the safety of corrupt management. Several posters here reassure that Chernobyl etc. were poorly managed and that we've learned a lot since then. But ongoing corruption doesn't instill confidence that learnings will be incorporated safely.
Saying that catastrophes have been uncommon over decades is also not reassuring as one would expect catastrophes to increase if we go from not building and decommissioning to rapid building and recommissioning.
Maybe the upper limit of atomic power catastrophe is still a low casualty count. In that case we shouldn't reassure people that we've learned and improved and instead show that even rampantly corrupt administration cannot do much harm, if that's the case.
I was involved in the nuclear industry in the 90's.
Why impose externalities on others when solar and wind are so cheap and less risky? It seems like proponents fall for technological aspirationalism without considering pragmatic consequences and risks of shoveling enormous sums of money for unnecessary risks and inefficient allocations of capital because it's seems just barely unobtainable or blocked by "them" when it's simply economically unviable.
And it's selective technological aspirationalism. Why is unbounded optimism appropriate for nuclear but not for renewables? The engineering principle of KISS says renewables should be much more improvable, as indeed the data indicates they are.
Intermittent renewables supplying an industrial society does not. And there is no way to get from here to there except a lot of handwaving and "magic happens here".
Real examples in the last years:
Olkiluoto 3 - 17 Years
SHIDAO BAY-1 - 9 Years
Flammanvill-3 - 17 Years
VOGTLE-4 - 11 Years
FANGCHENGGANG-4 - 8 Years
RAJASTHAN-7 - 14 Years
It’s the only point in one’s career where you’re expected to do both programming and managing and it’s hard to do both at the same time and at a good level.
“Depends on ads to survive” is wildly different from “uses ads to promote the product it depends on to survive”. Apple doesn’t generate revenue from running ads. Google does because you can pay google to promote your ads and google makes money even when your product doesn’t sell.
Apple doesn't report Ad business numbers in quarterly earnings report, so we have to rely on third party analyst reports.
> Last year, Apple’s U.S. ad business totaled $6.47 billion, but only accounted for 2.1% of total digital ad spending, according to eMarketer’s March 2025 forecast
There are RPGs in which you don’t play against other people but you can interact with them to sell items. In these games being able to generate vast amounts of in game wealth creates inflation for everybody and makes it so that normal players can’t interact with the economy. With regards to your other point about separating the player base it would create fragmentation and higher queues for matchmaking. Finally keep in mind that even in single player games people compete for speed run records or world first achievements.
Having used both Google and Apple for notes, calendar, docs, cloud back up (general files) and photos I have come to believe Google has the better tech but Apple has the better product. It fascinates me how Google just can’t design a simple and intuitive UI for its products, which are by all means technically superior.
reply