Use them for what they are (hints, documentation). Use it for gradual typing when implementation makes it hard to understand return or parameters types. But don't enforce it across your code base, use another language or another mindset instead.
Those kind of tools should have the same name as the command they replace, I don’t want to change my workflow with this or that. I think a simple wrapper over cd with fzf is good enough and much simpler. Claude can probably write it in a few minutes.
Of course you can alias, but I was not very clear indeed. My point is that these tools ship multiple commands (z, zi, etc. autojump does too). I treat core shell commands as interfaces: keep the name, swap the implementation. If there's just one command, you can of course alias it (but why should I do this final step); if there are many, it turns into clutter. These tools should enhance existing commands instead of reinventing them: the goal is the same result, just faster and better. The philosophy is non-intrusive augmentation, like bash_completion or fzf.
Further improve XDM, XPath; achieve v3.1 compliance.
Add remaining v3.0 features to the XSLT engine.
NB. We're picking the low-hanging fruit first. So major, fundamental features of the languages are being implemented to begin with. The fine detail will be added later.
Although the eventual desire is to implement all of XSLT v3.0 functionality, some more advanced features will be implemented sooner rather than later.
This is the regular current taboo. Micro-dust from tires and brakes contributes to half of an ICE vehicle’s pollution, with the other half coming from exhaust emissions. The amount of this micro-dust scales with a power of the vehicle’s weight, typically between the square and cube for cars, and up to the fourth power for heavy trucks. EVs are 30–60% heavier than their ICE counterparts. Assuming all other factors remain constant, EVs thus generate more particulate pollution than ICE vehicles. This does NOT even include the environmental impact of battery production and electricity generation.
"Assuming all other factors remain constant" is doing a lot of (largely unjustified) work there. Regen braking massively reduces the amount of friction-brake usage in EVs, to the point where brakes will need to be repaired due to under use.
EVs are heavier than similar ICE vehicles, but they also have regenerative braking, which greatly reduces wear on the brake pads. I suspect EVs produce much less particulate pollution from brake pads, but somewhat more from their tires.
My EV does not brake, redirects the power to a motor to act as a dynamo. In exceptional cases you can brake but for emergency braking and such.
What you say is a lie, not sure if by ignorance or malice.
> This does NOT even include the environmental impact of battery production and electricity generation
Okay so if we're veering off particulates here anyway, why ignore that electricity generation is actually a whole lot cleaner than burning contemporary fuels?
Maybe better not to rehash the obvious, I just wanted to point out that there's more to it than downsides
If you are consistent then, your solution should be to move to another transportation, or to help policy transition. Because bikes, trains and bus are undiscutably better.
The sharp rise in the rat population in my city coincides with a new regulation requiring food waste to be placed in a thin, dedicated bag outside. Since collection is delayed, the waste spoils, providing an easy food source for pests. It did not coincide with climate warming, at least not in my city.
In the town where I grew up, the city code required every house to have a disposal in the kitchen. The code stated that the rule was intended to help control rats. Every house I've lived in had one, but coverage is spotty in cheap rental units. I've never had to throw food waste in the trash.
FYI, don’t dispose of food waste in a garbage disposal. It’s good for dealing with a small amount of food, but pipes are not designed for mass undigested food waste.
A clog doesn't quality as something going terribly wrong. Empirically, my plumbing costs are $300 over 10 years. By comparison, rats are actually a big problem in the deep wooded suburbs. We spend a lot more on exterminators, rat traps, poison, and mesh covers to keep them out of the house. Rats smell bad, scare the girls, attack the chickens, spread garbage around the pickup area, spread fleas to the dogs, and are a nontrivial vector for serious human diseases.
So given that rats are a bigger problem than clogs under my current policy of scraping plates down the disposer, I should probably do it even more.
So what are they for? If you scrape your plates so there are only tiny bits of soft food going down the drain you don't need a garbage disposal anyway. I don't have one and I've never had a blockage.
Someone selling a convenience product does not necessarily mean it is not flawed.
The company that sells you a garbage disposal doesn’t really care if there’s plumbing issues ten years down the line, or if the waste treatment plant can’t handle it, they already got paid.
Another example of this in the plumbing world is flushable wipes. They cause tons of issues in plumbing systems.
"Ambergris has been synthesized, but its synthetic versions are not convincing. They lack an indefinable something that is gained only after years spent at sea."
Probably a bit like synthesized truffle oil, good enough for most people but lacking richness for a trained delicate palate.
The scandal with truffle oil is how difficult it is to find anything remotely real even if you want to, because of the duplicitous wording on packaging and marketing copy.
I think the scandal with truffle is that even refined palates can't find it. Even the most refined restaurants that use actual truffle, are forced to add the fake thing, or most customers won't be satisfied with the dish.
I still drive a 2008 model car with nothing more than a radio and a basic Bluetooth handsfree system, and it's all I've ever needed. When I bought the car, I consciously opted out of a 3500€ built-in GPS, predicting that smartphone navigation would soon surpass it. Over a decade later, that decision still holds up—my iPhone handles all my navigation needs more effectively than any built-in system could.
Now, as I face the inevitability of replacing my car due to dubious environmental regulations (current car emits less than modern but twice heavier ones), I'm genuinely concerned about the current state of car infotainment systems. They feel overly complex, bloated, and fragile, prioritizing features over functionality and user experience. The shift towards these systems seems more like a downgrade, sacrificing reliability and usability for unnecessary add-ons that don't improve the driving experience.
Anyone in the same position? What car would you recommend that meets environmental standards but keeps the infotainment system super simple, or even non-existent?
The AA/Carplay experience is incredibly superior to a cell phone clipped into some type of holder. With wireless Carplay, I couldn't even imagine going back to plugging my phone in, or even taking it out of my pocket. There is no downside because you aren't forced into using it.
I guess YMMV. I've recently had the chance to test drive some of the latest models from BMW and Audi, and honestly, I found their infotainment software to be quite laggy and sometimes unresponsive. It felt inexact and bloated, reminiscent of an old Windows XP laptop with a Samsung UI skin. While the CarPlay integration was ok, it still didn’t surpass the simplicity and efficiency of just using my iPhone mounted on the dashboard as a makeshift heads-up display.
I'd agree with the comments about the built-in system for any car but I disagree that mounting your phone on the dashboard is more simple and efficient then just leaving it in your pocket for the same functionality.
