I tried WezTerm on Windows because I was looking for a terminal with ligature support and lower input latency than Windows Terminal. Unfortunately, it still had higher input latency than cmd.exe. The only terminal with ligature support that comes close in terms of input latency is contour (https://contour-terminal.org/).
I can't provide you with numbers but back when I used Windows on my work machine, I recorded my screen + microphone input using OBS to compare they recorded keystroke sound and appearance of the character on my screen. I was able to confirm my suspicion in that WezTerm yielded higher input latency. This was especially noticeable when using helix inside of WSL - movement in normal mode would always sort of lag behind the keystrokes.
EDIT: Just installed in on my Mac and here, I can't notice any difference between kitty (my current input latency baseline) and WezTerm. Good stuff! Not sure how Windows fares nowadays, though.
Come on...before you post complaints about how someone else is literally giving away millions of dollars to the wrong promising young people, maybe actually read the list of projects?
"Zeno Power is developing small-scale nuclear power systems to provide clean and resilient power in austere environments." He's literally funding clean energy.
And even if this year's list didn't have that in the list, let's celebrate someone doing good instead of lobbing stones from the sidelines about how they didn't do it the exact way we would have.
If there were things on there about climate or carbon capture people would find something else to hate about it. It's not enough. It won't work. And so on...
That's extremely glass half-empty of you. There's a surprising number of companies in this list that are about sustainable production. And Zeno Power is developing clean (nuclear) energy.
Not really. It is certainly an issue which progressives put more weight on. And there is a disagreement on the solutions too: progressives are generally apprehensive about nuclear. [1]
You can personally attack me with any one of the "certain" labels in the arsenal. But you can also choose to argue in good faith.
> And there is a disagreement on the solutions too: progressives are generally apprehensive about nuclear.
Yeah, this is one of the things I really hate about my side of the aisle. It's stupid, unscientific, and just plain uninformed. Nuclear energy is one of our best, most actually viable ways out of this mess. (File with: GMO crops, 'chemicals', etc.)
Ah, I hadn't realised that. I'm really glad to hear that. Obviously I hope PV and other green energy sources will take off, but in the interim nuclear is by far the best established and working green source of energy.
That was interesting. Surveys are not that reliable though, and the outcome depends on how the question is being asked.
I found this 2020 survey by Pew Research which I think paints a more realistic picture [1]. It has a larger sample size [2], and IMO it asks a more objective/specific question.
Among "Conservative Republicans", 59% responded that they support expanding nuclear power plants, in contrast with 35% of "Liberal Democrats". Interestingly, for "Mod/lib Republicans", that number is also below 50%.
You might have a point though. My personal observation is that there has been a slight shift among the progressives, but not as much as the graph by ecoAmerica suggests.
This survey is still a year and 7 months old now. In my personal observation is that most of the folks I know here in NYC who identify as a Democrat, Progressive, etc are in favor of nuclear power.
Please note that you are conflating two different things.
This piece is on the fellowship, and the article says: “To date, companies created by Thiel Fellows are together valued at more than $46.8 billion, excluding Ethereum which is valued at $450 billion.”
It would've been nice to see why a particular book was included in the list. I certainly don't agree with the addition of Clean Code, but I may be missing something, hence my wish.
I read it two years ago. I personally believe it's amazing as an example of what 150% of a good thing looks like, and the point is deciding what 1/3rd to cut to make a neat 10/10.
Without that book, you barely see what 50% of programming goodness looks like. The only way to 100% is to go too far and dial it back. Offering 150%, imo, is a humble way to offer a path forward without getting the reader all the way there. Maybe it's better that way.
*Most influential books for programmers
These are books considered most influential for programmers from this StackOverflow thread.*
That was point farming question on SO and people were voting on what was most influential for them.
Title might be tricky to read. Because title is saying that those books are not influential on the scientific field but are about that field. Problem is that there are books that are not about that topic so it adds to the confusion.
Books are about "computer science" topic and those books are meant to be influential in general.
It is by popular vote of how influential those books are on practitioners of software development.
let's say the council comes to your house and ask you to hang a sock of different color everyday at your front door, and say "good morning" to the light pole, you know, random shit that means nothing to no one. Would you comply because there is no harm?
Now imagine it's not some random shit, maybe they ask you to go to the front door every morning and shout "Black lives matter", you know, something that sounds good but actually is still meaningless, for show only. In enforcing this they allocate the time of social workers who would otherwise do real work, into corresponding emails, knocking doors, doing inspecting work. I mean what's the harm? to you personally?
Let's go further, what if the council and their workers realize they can get good publicity and funding by keep adding for more slogans, for-show kind of "initiatives", and do no real work. Why not then just stop real work and bank on this pretend work stream?
But ultimately, what is the harm to YOU, personally?
because there are multiple viewpoints given by people, various publications, and later fb itself towards proposed policy and they all can't be right. It's a prime example of spreading misinformation.
