> Yes there are window managers for mac if you really want to replicate linux window management.
Not really. None of the "window managers" for macOS actually play the role of compositors on Wayland or window managers on X11. macOS has exactly one window manager, plus a bunch of apps that run automation against it and sometimes call themselves "window manager".
> This is exactly how windows management works in macos. It is simply a different philosophy, but it is much closer to how desktop management actually works in real life with a physical desktop and physical papers.
Most window managers (and the vast majority of the popular ones) on Linux are also like this. It's called a "floating window manager". Tiling window managers are cool but they're marginal even on Linux.
Okay, I guess, but that's a social wish about the preferences of others. It makes about at much sense as me wishing you just liked KDE. And at any rate it's not a technical or design wish that any software developer or team thereof can fix per se.
I have nothing against KDE. If they made KDE the default thing, great. Could be Gnome instead, doesn't really matter. If anyone wants to make Linux a mass alternative to Windows, they need to agree on basic things like this, and then stop randomly changing it.
There are some people who could make it happen. Torvalds could distribute an official desktop Linux and people would probably use it, like how there's already one official kernel. Nothing would stop people from customizing their systems, but 99% don't care to. He isn't interested in doing that.
> the total US anti AI sentiment, which can be much more easily explained by job loss anxieties, fear of massive change and good old NIMBYism. (Obligatory not an American).
Some of it is also due to the qualities of LLMs as they actually behave and actually function today, "AI" being forced into products where it actively degrades the reliability, efficiency, or pleasantness of the product, etc. Think of Amazon's "Alexa for Shopping" or whatever, and whatever its predecessor was.
> Every wiki provides an easy way to clone its contents down to your computer. Once you've created an initial page on GitHub, you can clone the repository to your computer with the provided URL.
Every GitHub wiki you visit also has a section at the bottom that points to that URL with the description
It sounds like the whole argument here is that the commits in the docs repo aren't identical commits in the source code repo. But you can ameliorate that with something like tags or submodules. And it's also inherently true of any project with more than one repo, too.
I've been using compose keys on desktop operating systems and the default keyboard on Android to write em-dashes for 10 years. I also use LLMs every workday, but I have never once used one to write, review, or edit prose because my voice is important to me.
I don't give a shit if my Hacker News comments sometimes look "suspect" to some people. The way I use language is deeply personal and I'm not going to let the clankers or reactionaries against them take it away from me.
Hear, hear! An em-dash is a great stylistic device for structuring sentences. It saddens me that the use of it now has become some sort of scarlet letter. I’m hoping the co-opting can be reversed.
I've also noticed this but it sounds kind of infantile to me. It's a common pronunciation that a lot of children make seemingly by mistake and then eventually stop doing. When adults do this it sounds wrong, but I admit I have heard it.
It seems to me like the more intellectually honest characterization of things like hiring quotas and admissions quotas is "discrimination in the interest of the good" or "compensatory discrimination" rather than "this isn't discrimination". It's not a little-known practice and it doesn't negatively affect only white men (it also negatively affects East Asian men, for instance).
If you think those hiring practices are justified against a backdrop of ongoing white supremacy, patriarchy, etc., say that. If you think they're only a small adjustment in the big picture in a world where tacit norms of credibility, transgenerational wealth, and interpersonal connections still overwhelmingly favor white men, say that. But when someone says "hiring practices actively try to tell people apart by race and ethnicity in a way that disfavors my odds" and you reply amounts "nuh-uh, and you can't say that!", you frankly weaken the left, because you aren't addressing the real contention and you look to outsiders like you are denying an obvious fact.
> They seem to be very unhappy about Japan building up its war fighting capacity.
Maybe because of Japan's history of horrific war crimes and occupation in China? You know, the actual imperial conquest for which their constitution prohibits them from having a standing air force?
Germany is also pumping a lot of money into Military. Nobody in Europe seems to mind.
Pretty sure China is unhappy not for history reason, but because of the current situation, which is that China tries to establish military dominance in the region and wants to invade Taiwan.
I fail to see the logic here, can you spell this out for me? Are you saying:
1. Japan pissed off other countries and therefore does not need to defend itself from this greater threat?
2. Japan pissed off other countries and therefore should not be allowed to defend itself from this greater threat? It should just be conquered as a type of moral punishment (wasn't Japan already nuked, conquered, and occupied? Wasn't that enough? If not, why not?)
3. There is no greater threat. That Japan pissed off countries in the past has no bearing on the level of threat facing Japan today, in which case they should be allowed to spend as much as their neighbors on defense and the past is a non-issue.
4. There is a negative threat -- that Japan pissed off countries in the past means that they are now more secure and therefore less in need of defense?
Which of these are you arguing?
I am a little lost about how Japan committing war crimes in the past means they do need to spend as much on defense today, as this is a very counterintuitive claim, and it appears you are arguing for 4 or, if a dark personality, for 2. In which case, I'd like you to spell it out for the community to hear.
I think its 5. that it is understandable for some countries to fear and be concerned when Japan arms itself.
it's not a statement on what should be and shouldn't be, but rather attempting to provide reasons as to why China might not like this move, without resorting to claims of propaganda or the fear being illegitement
The emotional reaction you are describing is just 'I don't like Japan, therefore any news of Japan increasing its defense makes me upset', and honestly I don't think this sentiment has any reasoning behind it, and doesn't need to be justified or defended, but in the same manner, it doesn't need to be heeded.
Nations don't make security decisions based on the hatred of other nationals, or whatever hurt feelings they might have, they make spending decisions based on their own security needs.
In the case of Japan, it has serious security needs because the US is much weaker now and cannot provide a defense shield, whereas China is both much stronger and also is making expansive territorial claims in the South China Sea. That calls for more defense spending just as a rational response. It also calls for Japan to update its constitution as the postwar arrangement comes to an end, which they will do, and they will also develop nuclear weapons.
Honestly it makes no sense for South Korea to not have a nuke if North Korea does. When you have a conflict between two nations, and one acquires nuclear weapons, the other side is driven to do the same. Look at India and Pakistan. In the past, the US kept a lid on things because it had such overwhelming dominance that it could be a global policeman and in that environment, individual nations didn't need to provide for their own defense, they had a policeman to back them.
But that era is now over, and as much as people complained about the US strutting around like a global cop, they are about to see the consequences of a world without a global cop -- that is, the world as it normally exists. In that world, it makes no sense for Japan to not have a nuke if North Korea and China does, and soon South Korea will, too. My guess is that South Korea will go nuclear first.
Just as it makes no sense for Iran to not have a nuke if Israel does. This is not a matter of hurt feelings, it is a matter of security balancing. It doesn't matter if you don't like Iran, or if you do like it, it's just a question of nations taking care of their own survival.
All of this will happen, and we will look back on the period of non-proliferation as being an artifact of US global dominance, understanding that as US military dominance fades, nations will turn to measures of self-help in a hostile world.
The whole world is changing, and we should face it with clarity and wisdom, not with hurt feelings. There are all sorts of repercussions to global trade, to global security arrangements, that are changing right now, and it helps to have your eyes open and think "well, how would each nation respond to this new threat environment" in a deliberate and realist perspective, rather than whether you like a given country or not.
One example is what is happening right now in Saudi Arabia. The US promised to be Saudi's security guarantor in 1945, and historically the US has done this, but this is a role that the US can no longer play, so Saudi Arabia is now being beaten by Yemen, and is desperately appealing to the US for help, but there is little the US can do. Now Saudi Arabia is in a pickle -- it will also turn to nuclear weapons.
One thing to think about is the moral hazard of these types of security guarantees - they incentivize client states to provoke their enemies, in this case Saudi Arabia invading and occupying Yemen, installing a puppet government, and blockading the nation. When you have the US at your back, you can take these provocative actions. But then comes a moment when you look behind and the Big Brother is no longer there.
Then we can look at Europe, you have this demilitarized continent that is doing things like seizing Russian ships because they are confident that the US will step and fight a war with Russia on their behalf. Well, they are going to learn that reality has changed and the US no longer has the power projection capability it once did. And what will they do? My guess is that at least one European state will nuclearize.
We are going to see major shifts happen as nations regionalize, many nations nuclearize, and new regional trade blocs form that disrupt global capital flows that we have taken for granted, especially if you formed your view of reality in the era when there was a Global Cop that had your back.
>Then we can look at Europe, you have this demilitarized continent that is doing things like seizing Russian ships because they are confident that the US will step and fight a war with Russia on their behalf. Well, they are going to learn that reality has changed and the US no longer has the power projection capability it once did. And what will they do? My guess is that at least one European state will nuclearize.
I was nodding along to your post until this point. Where are you from? Russia is not an innocent party in all of this, which is what your post is implying. Secondly, there are already two European states (who are not Russia) with nuclear weapons.
That's interesting I actually didn't read it this way. I could be wrong of course but I didn't really think op was implying guilt or innocence on Russias part. Just more a statement of what's happening. EU is seizing ships, and they probably do think US will back them, maybe not so much recently haha. Don't think op was making a moral judgement on whether that's right or wrong.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't imagine modern Japan being a threat to modern China. That seems like David (Japan) vs Goliath, but unlikely to have the mythical outcome.
Not really. None of the "window managers" for macOS actually play the role of compositors on Wayland or window managers on X11. macOS has exactly one window manager, plus a bunch of apps that run automation against it and sometimes call themselves "window manager".
> This is exactly how windows management works in macos. It is simply a different philosophy, but it is much closer to how desktop management actually works in real life with a physical desktop and physical papers.
Most window managers (and the vast majority of the popular ones) on Linux are also like this. It's called a "floating window manager". Tiling window managers are cool but they're marginal even on Linux.
reply