The labyrinth symbol, as a decoration or motif in ancient Greek artifacts, isn't generally a maze, but the labyrinth of myth is. Theseus had to use thread, given to him by Ariadne, to find his way back out.

The problem with your argument is that it's a universal argument against performance. And if an argument is universal, then it doesn't have any information value.

No, this is something that nuanced. The title is wrong because musl isn't going to prevent you from writing fast software.

Whatever benefit there is to a different libc, is absolutely miniscule compared to do actual optimizations like avoiding allocations.

I'll give you real numbers: if you put allocations of short vectors of a dozen floats in a hot loop, when you lift the allocations out your program is going to instantly get about 10x faster. The allocation is no longer going to be the bottleneck, it will be marginal and then a faster allocator isn't going to matter at all.

If someone gets an easy speedup from using a different libc that's great, but the vast majority of time it isn't going to matter and isn't going to be where any real speedups come from. The difference is a small percentage speedup vs orders of magnitude.

The amounts to the title being wrong, using musl or a small standard library just doesn't prevent a program from running fast. It is a tiny difference and even that tiny difference can be changed from things like better allocators which you would do anyway with a standard libc.

Also Austria, perhaps Italy, but I have less direct experience there.

In other countries Revolut is popular for the friends and family bill splitting, in places like Sweden they have a PayPal-like solution offered by local banks. There’s an upcoming initiative by Brussels to bring all these national initiatives under one umbrella, which would definitely hurt PayPal’s German revenue in future.

I have, but never use, a 'credit card'. The thing I use every day is a 'debit card', where the money comes straight from my account. But it still has 16 digits and Visa written on the front.

Since then MasterCard has tried to force banks into dropping GiroCard, by refusing to work with smaller banks that still support GiroCard, and by offering better conditions to larger banks that drop GiroCard.

This has increased the number of Germans with Visa/MasterCard, but it's still below 50%.

If the supplier goes out of business / fails to deliver, the bank/credit card company is equally liable. A Section 75 claim is allowed for purchases between £100 and £30,000.

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/consumers/complaints-...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switch_(debit_card)

All the traditional large ones seem to have AFAIK.

Off topic but I really hate N26 and its ilk. They don't really follow the German laws that say that German residents can have bank accounts, so they refuse people that are still on work visas, which is a pain in the fucking ass when you have a startup and the young employees are telling the immigrants "get N26" or something else, but the immigrants can't have it and only learn after submitting lots of docs to N26.

They check during the KYC process via mobile phone camera, and will reject people without a residence permit (Aufenthaltserlaubnis, Blue Card, etc), and they claim several things, from "we don't accept work visas" to "I never saw this document in my life".

Legally, a work visa is an Aufenthaltserlaubnis according to § 4 AufenthG, so N26 is classifying it wrongly here.

But it gets worse because they're breaking § 31 ZKG, which says they're obligated to provide an account for everyone here legally. We have formally complained to BAFIN about it.

Just copied the above law paragraphs from an HR discussion, btw, this is a recurring issue...

And I know this from helping several others, since I'm the startup ecosystem. I'm European, but not German.

My Girocard has Maestro integration, so I can use it overseas, but no number. Apparently this is gonna go away.

The Girocard naturally has ApplePay, which is what I use daily.

People used to use Paypal because they have only debit cards. But with better card security and alternatives like SEPA and Wero there is way less need.

Many Germans don't have credit cards (I don't), so PayPal is pretty convenient as it can withdraw directly from a SEPA account and enables online shopping.

Google Pay cannot do SEPA, but allows adding PayPal as a payment method, so PayPal also gets you into the Google purchase ecosystem.

Revolut with its virtual CCs has been making some inroads lately, though.

Small commits can often be tested faster, since irrelevant tests don't need to run.

Small commits are less risky. The smaller the delta of change, the lower the probability that something breaks.

Small commits get merged sooner; big commits take time to build up. Merging early front-loads your integration risk; merging later puts integration risk just before delivery.

Breaking a big feature into small commits means using feature flags to control whether a feature is enabled or not (since control paths will generally be incomplete). This means you separate the delivery of the code from the delivery of the feature, and has the added benefit that you can turn off a feature that has a problematic rollout without needing to redeploy code.

It uses a persistent changeid to model a change mutating over time, like Gerrit uses Change-Id in the description footer, and unlike git.

Jujutsu can be colocated with git and use .git as its backing store; every jj change revision is a git commit.

When you use jujutsu, you tend not to use branches any more, and think in terms of changes and chains of changes (i.e. stacked PRs, what Gerrit calls Relation Chains).

Jujutsu makes it very easy to work with a chain of changes (stacked PRs), letting you update commits in the middle and automatically rebasing the rest of the chain, without forcing you to interrupt work and resolve conflicts if there happen to be any (so, unlike git rebase -i with 'edit' on the commit you want to update).

IMO if you like the Gerrit workflow and the way it handles chained commits, if you switch to jj for two days of work, you'll never want to use git again.

I wrote it internally after struggling a lot with getting the relevant knowledge from the relevant authorities (Klabnik has the best resources but his writing seems to depend on you understanding abstract concepts before you grasp the practicality, which works for programming languages but less so for tools - which you want to "get out of the way").

in fact.. screw it... here: https://blog.dijit.sh/gerrit_with_jj/

There are also the "Mark as reviewed" checkboxes per file that can help you track what's been looked at.

There are many many more but start with the app having the overbearing assumption that it thinks you want save to its file format rather than make an ad hoc edit.

I don't use Gimp as a 3D modeling software or a digital audio workstation. I use it to add text to a family photo. The primary storage medium is jpeg. I don't want or need anything else.

The real issues with Gimp start when you try to work with selections, transforms, cuts, crops and so on. Photoshop muscle memory doesn't transfer and it is so incredibly clunky.

So you open your photo, add your text, press Ctrl+E, choose a filename or press Enter to overwrite your old version, and press Enter to accept the default jpeg settings.

I guess it could save a couple of keypresses by auto-overwriting your original file without asking, or not asking about jpeg settings. But it doesn't seem like an outrageous workflow, considering that other people will want those options.

I do feel the same way as you about Photoshop muscle memory, having got quite good at it in the '90s and never really having caught up in Gimp.

But, as a long time but infrequent user, I really dislike the changes towards "non-destructive" UX that just seems to spawn endless layers and other forms of pixel buffer limbo that confuse me. Lately, it feels like I'm being slow walked by a passive-aggressive tool that wants to waste my time and mental energy.

I wish there was a "novice" or "casual" user setting option to go back to a much simpler UX, where I am operating immediately on the selected layer. Where a pasted object can be dragged but anchors as soon as I touch something else, etc. Where filters preview but then "apply" immediately. Where undo can revert some recent changes but otherwise the effects accumulate destructively into the current layer.

A naive user may never have to learn about layers, but they are still there when desired. I don't want a layer spawning on their own. I'll make the new layer before I start changing things, and I'll think deliberately how I want that layer filled. Then, I'll resume actions that immediately mutate it.

1) When you apply a filter, there's a "Merge filter" checkbox. If you check it, filters will be merged down immediately like in 2.10. The setting is remembered, though currently the unique Color filters are remembered separately from the generic ones.

2) If you go to Edit -> Keyboard Shortcuts and search for "Paste as Floating Selection", you can bind Ctrl + V to it so that you get the 2.10 floating selection behavior.

I sort of get their point. The "Only one of these formats(the one you have never heard of) will save all aspects of your work, every other one will lose things, pick wisely." school of interface design is a massive footgun. But I like interfaces that get out of your way and just let you do things.

And I just had a bright idea, "forget the save dialog, just use the export dialog for everything" but it turns out the export dialog will not let you save to .xcf My disappointment is immeasurable. Why not gimp team? You dashed my last hope for a single unified interface. Somebody had to go out of their way to take that out.

I too got fed up with the prose of Opus in particular, and tried going back. Unfortunately, the previous models were less able to hack it. The prose was better but progress was worse.

It wasn't just conversation and comments. Some of the function names were wild. Like it instead of something like "isSolidWall(x)" it would write something like "weightyNotEphemeral(x)" or something - that's not quite it, but it really did embed overwrought antithesis into the identifier instead of a straightforward positive predicate.

Is this a literal example? That is wild.