this is interesting because of how much it differs from my own hopes. I don't really have any personal need or want for the Linux desktop marketshare to increase. I like computers because I can program them to do something and it will do it. Ideally you have complete control over it. I've customized my desktop here and there in order to get some result, but while you care most about the _result_, for me the act of _making_ that result happen is as important if not more. I'm not looking to offload it to something else.
I don't really see the troubleshooting/customization as annoying. It's not much different than learning to program. At first you don't have any intuition for patterns or ways to solve problems, but given time, you start to identify them and know how to work on it unaided. For many distros or operating systems more broadly, it's the same thing. When in doubt, I head to the Arch wiki or more rarely the forums, then I'm good to go.
I'm not really after some integrated LLM or Copilot 365 for Linux experience when it comes to using my computer.
I don't think the evidence is on your side for the outcomes. Kids cannot be assured to make the best choices in their own interest for every scenario. I was on meds for ADHD from ages 4 to 14 before I asked to stop. In elementary school I was among the most talented students in my class, but I was very close to failing to graduate high school. I later failed out of community college. Through great effort I managed to get employed as a software developer, though my original passion and hope was biology. I now take Vyvanse to keep sustained focus in my work.
I'm confident if I had stayed on my meds that I would have been far more academically successful in high school and beyond. I pushed to get off Adderall as a kid because I started to feel like a zombie on it, but maybe my parents could have instead helped me to find a treatment that was better suited for me or adjust my dosage.
Getting the dosage right with ADHD meds is super difficult. And your needs and body change with time.
I wonder if it wasn't the puberty that made you somehow more susceptible to amphetamine. Lot of things change in the body at that time and it could have also been the enzymes that process the amphetamine.
I've played Senet regularly for over 15 years. I was working over the holidays on a GNOME Senet game which I hope to put out there soon. I think it strikes a fun balance between chance and strategy. It probably won't appease chess die-hards on the complexity front, but for casual gameplay it's nice.
thank you for introducing me; i've never realized just how old some board games are. Even in rural eastern europe, my extended family has been playing "Nine Man's Morris" for decades, which I now know was likely a cultural custom there for centuries because of its history. I just thought it was some game they made up lol! Extremely cool
I think many people who grew up before cell phones remember phone numbers from the past. I just thought about it and can list the phone numbers of 3 houses that were on my childhood street in the early 2000s + another 5 that were friends in the area. I remember at least a handful of cell phone numbers from the mid to late 2000s as friends started to get those; some of them are still current. On the other hand, I don't know the number of anyone I've met in the last 15 years besides my wife, and haven't tried to.
Incidentally, the largest group of Chinese characters are phono-semantic e.g. encode both meaning and pronunciation. Over half of all Chinese characters are in that bucket. That actually allows speakers to have some ability to guess both pronunciation and meaning of characters they have never seen. There are rules to guide this.[0]
In Classical Chinese actually. Mandarin, which I assume you mean, is not the language these characters were designed for. But it is related enough that the phonetic hints often (but not always) help.
Classical Chinese had a much larger phonemic inventory than modern Mandarin, and notably no tones. Below are a collection of Classical Chinese reconstructions in IPA that are all pronounced yì in Mandarin today. (like "ee" for English speakers). The creation of tones and other sound changes were fairly predictable, so as you say, the hints often still help today.
Nit point (I'm not sure it's relevant), but we don't know to what degree Old Chinese did or dit not have tones. The very first work to say anything at all about pronunciation is a Middle Chinese text from ~600AD, which already did have a system of 4 tones, albeit a different 4-tone system than Mandarin. Old Chinese pronunciation is a reconstruction from very limited data, not unlike proto-Indo-European, despite being considerably closer to the present.
I just looked it up and the phonetic markers are only like 20-30% reliable. I am shocked at this number as in my experience I would have thought it higher (I would have guessed 60-70%), but it is definitely hit-or-miss. I've never found tones to be predictable.
My personal blog that until recently was mostly reviews on lox bagels. I yanked out the bagel reviews for now to focus on programming topics, but need to write up some worthwhile posts.
I sometimes have this argument with my Product Owner, despite believing we both want what we individually believe is best for our users. I've tried to suggest that the ideal interface for a power user is not the ideal interface for a novice, and that none of our users should be novices for long as an expectation.
I work on an internal app for an insurance company that allows viewing and editing insurance product configuration data. Stuff like what coverages we offer, what limits and deductibles apply to those, etc. We have built out a very very detailed data model to spell out the insurance contract fully. It has over 20 distinct top-level components comprising an "insurance product". The data generated is then used to populate quoting apps with applicable selections, tie claims to coverage selections, and more.
Ultimately these individual components have a JSON representation, and the "power user" editor within our app is just a guided JSON editor providing intellisense and validation. For less technical users, we have a "visual editor" that is almost fully generated from our schema. I thought perhaps this article referred to something like that. Since our initial release, a handful of new top-level components have been added to the schema to further define the insurance product details. For the most part, these have not required any additionally coding to have a good experience in our "visual editor". The components for our visual editor are more aligned to data types: displaying numbers, enums, arrays, arrays of arrays, etc, which any new schema objects are likely to be built from. That also applies to nested objects i.e. limits are built from primitives, coverages are built from limits. Given user feedback we can make minor changes to the display, but it's been very convenient for us to have it dynamically rendered based of the schema itself.
The schema is also versioned and our approach ensures that the data can be viewed and edited regardless of schema version. When a user checks out a coverage to edit it, the associated schema version is retrieved, the subschema for coverages is retrieved, and a schema parser maps properties of the schema to the appropriate React editor components.
p.s. These patterns might be commonplace and I'm just ignorant to it. I'm a backend dev who joined a new team that was advertised as a backend gig, but quickly learned that the primary focus would be a React Typescript app, neither of which I had any professional experience with.
it's interesting how differently people perceive it. Motherfucker is something I'd have called a parent in a card game if they bested me, or an exclamation said aloud from dropping a wallet while walking. Very little significance to it.
