samc
To add some more context:
Eglot is part of Emacs now, so it comes preinstalled. It’s good at finding lsp servers, but won’t help you to install them. Definitely the option if you want to keep things simple and can live with the need to manually install servers.
(Also a quick note, the hook you should use to auto activate eglot is eglot-ensure, rather than just eglot.
The big downside is that, for backwards compatibility, the default must still be unsafe code. Ideally this could be toggled with a compiler flag, rather than having to wrap most code in “safe” blocks (like rust, but backwards).
One potential upside that people don’t seem to be discussing is that the safe subset could also be the place to finally start cutting down the bloat of C++. We could encourage most developers to write exclusively in the safe subset, and aim to make that the “much smaller and cleaner language” trying to get out of C++.
Obviously there’s a lot of caveats about how representative this survey (or any other survey) is of the broader population, but I think this is a good reminder of how weird we all are. Nobody on here claims to use Ubuntu or Manjaro, yet they are more popular than Fedora (and potentially even arch, when steam decks are discounted).
There’s nothing wrong with that, I love the weirdness of the Lemmy Linux community! I just always think it’s good to appreciate when opinions (like my love of ublue) aren’t as popular as you think they are.
I thought the route still hadn’t been finalised for the northern leg of HS2. Also high speed means you’re less flexible, as you need to go in a straighter line than normal rail.
I agree that it seems unlikely that the extra effort to complete the northern leg of HS2 would be greater than that of starting from scratch, but I’ve been surprised before.
Thanks, for computing some useful statistics! As much as I believe the implied hypothesis that working at Amazon is bad for one’s health, I think the guardian intentionally tried to present the largest number possible with no context.
Frankly, “Amazon warehouse employees 10x more likely to need an ambulance” is a more impactful headline anyway.
Please somebody correct me if I’m wrong, but I really don’t find the “chip makers don’t have to pay licence fees” a compelling argument that RISC-V is good for the consumer. Theres only a few foundries capable of making CPUs, and the desktop market seems incredibly hard to break into.
I imagine it’s likely that the cost of ISA licencing isn’t what’s holding back competition in the CPU space, but rather its a good old fashioned duopoly combined with a generally high cost of entry.
Of course, more options is better IMO, and the Linux community’s focus on FOSS should make hopping architectures much easier than on Windows or MacOS. But I’d be surprised if we see a laptop/desktop CPU based on RISC-V competing with current options anytime soon.
Am I right in thinking that the article’s main complaint, namely that the means testing excludes those too poor to retire, is wrong? You can still claim pension credit if you’re on a low income.