Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)E
Posts
49
Comments
3074
Joined
5 yr. ago

  • Is the LSP support a plugin in Neo-/Vim ?

    In Kate, you just install the LSP server, which is typically as simple as apt install marksman and then Kate will automatically start it when it encounters an appropriate file.

    Kate also has a Vi Mode, if that's what you're looking for. ¯(ツ)_/¯

  • Personally, I find Kate is decent enough for most coding tasks. It does not have an open plugin ecosystem, so I guess, maybe it wouldn't work for you. But aside from plugins, whenever I see people using VS Code/-ium, I wonder why they keep raving about it.

    It just looks like a bogstandard editor with LSP support to me. And Microsoft may have gotten that LSP ball rolling, but it's supported in lots of editors now...

  • I prefer if-expressions where possible. For example, this is valid Rust:

     rust
        
    let x = if is_y {
        y
    } else {
        z
    };
    
    
      

    (Can also be on a single line.)

    This is the same syntax as the normal if-statement, except the compiler forces you to add an else-branch, if you want to 'return' a value from it.

    Don't tell anyone, but the ternary operator is when the C designers realized that being purely procedural is cumbersome AF. 🙃Unfortunately, they decided that expressions need to look like math, so now JS devs get to write random question marks and colons across many, deeply nested lines of code.

  • I can figure most of the new style out from context.

    • => is clearly a closure declaration operator, similar to JavaScript.
    • x ??= y is shorthand for "assign y to x if x is not set, and return x" which is kind of nice.

    Man, I've successfully stayed away from C# for a few years now, but that's wild to me that the x ??= y operator would be intuitive to you.This could've easily been two or three operations, without being much more verbose, but actually being somewhat intuitively readable for most devs...

  • I feel like lots of people here use Linux, where you don't need to be constantly vigilant of your applications working against you...

  • You don't have to squash to avoid merge commits. Instead, you can git rebase main to update your branch. Effectively, this will rewrite the history of your branch, as if you had just branched from the main-branch and then instantly coded all your changes on top of that. (Well, the commit timestamps won't change, but they will sit on top of the changes of the main-branch.)

    Afterwards, you should be able to merge into main by switching to it and then running git merge --ff-only your_branch.Because all the changes sit on top of the main-branch commits, it should be able to fast-forward. No actual merging needs to take place then. You've already resolved any conflicts while rebasing.

    This also allows you to keep branches for longer, so long as you frequently rebase and merge back.

  • Well, if you did commit it, but just hadn't pushed it yet, and then somehow lost that commit, then git reflog would be the tool for it.Without a commit, sometimes you may have already staged some changes for an upcoming commit and can roll back to that.

    But if neither of those are the case, then I can't really imagine how Git should help you there. You haven't told Git about those changes yet, so it's out of scope.At that point, you better hope your editor's undo history goes back far enough...

  • Yeah, I only watched it, because it's on PeerTube.

  • I've had juniors who didn't believe this, so just to say it: If you know what you're doing, practically any Git problem is recoverable.

    The one major exception is if you delete your local changes before committing them.

  • In terms of long-term costs, yeah, probably. But I work in software development, so investment budgets, and we definitely have the problem that investments into anything tangibly related to AI are encouraged.

    We've genuinely been told by customers that they'd rather have the more expensive, worse solution that uses AI, because they will not get investment money, if it does not use AI. They want to be scammed, because their bosses have targets that say x% of all investments need to be towards AI. And those targets come straight from the investors.

  • Here's the relevant quote:

    The F-Droid project cannot require that developers register their apps through Google, but at the same time, we cannot “take over” the application identifiers for the open-source apps we distribute, as that would effectively seize exclusive distribution rights to those applications.

    I think that last sentence is saying that it would work, if developers decided to exclusively distribute to F-Droid and effectively gave up control over the app to the F-Droid team.

    I'm thinking there might be a possibility to register the same app under two different identifiers, one controlled by F-Droid, the other by developer.But yeah, this makes some things more complex and might be deemed malicious behaviour by Google.

  • It's a video...

  • A few years ago, we were working with Siemens at $DAYJOB and they sent two folks to us, Silvan and Sibel.

    Then I tragically learned that their team lead is called Benjamin, which ruined that headcanon.

  • I doubt anyone said it verbatim, but it happens that they're deemed lower priority ad infinitum.

  • I have an insect screen which can be glued to the inside like so:

    (There's a white velcro strip already there, which you glue on before this step.)

    But yeah, it isn't a given that it fits there. I have an ancient window, where they didn't use plastic or rubber yet, so they tried to seal the window by having it contact right where you'd glue the insect screen and then it obviously doesn't fit in between (I tried 🫠).

  • You can still have the screen on the inside with these tiltable windows...

  • Oder je nach Regierung noch schlimmer:Besuche einer Synagoge oder Moschee

  • Mag sein. Effektiv wollte ich ausdrücken, dass diese Person, von der ich gerade zum ersten Mal gehört habe, offensichtlich nicht geeignet ist, das Bundesjustizministerium zu leiten.

    Und das eben nicht weil ich politisch andere Ansichten habe, nicht weil ich Vorurteile ihr gegenüber hege oder weil ich neunmalklug bin, sondern weil sie als Bundesjustizministerin einen Verfassungsbruch befürwortet – entweder bewusst oder weil sie sich trotz der Brisanz des Themas nicht einmal zu den Grundlagen der Technik hat informieren lassen.

    Das alles hat sich leichter mit einem trivialen Gegenargument ausdrücken lassen.