I don't mind discussing syntax when appropriate, but this feels like arguing over which trivial brainfuck substitution[1] is the best.

> monoid

nullables with `??` and `?.` are also give-or-take monoids. is it common though to `or` two MaybePhoneNumbers together or to apply a PhoneNumber->MaybePhoneNumber function to it? if not then why mention it?

let's see something meaningfully different like a database schema.

[1] https://esolangs.org/wiki/Trivial_brainfuck_substitution

Yes, they are

> The project is cool thought to learn about networks, NAT, Proxys, ect...

The author learned nothing though...

Eh maybe a few tidbits. But the world gained a new WiFi adapter!

I like that the second image filename is slop_2.png. At least they're self-aware.

Nix does not have these problems.

>brightest minds

more like dimmest tbh

Price?

U$ 619 for the black and white model and U$ 719 for the color model

https://www.crowdsupply.com/modos-tech/modos-flow#products

Not bad considering this is a niche specialty product and cutting edge. The price will come down if the demand and market grow. Assuming raw hardware costs stop rising

Will it? The whole e-ink market seems like it has never priced flexibly.

It never priced flexibly because the company that makes it kept a total stranglehold on the IP through patents and basically requires you to buy both the panel and the controller from them. I think it's actually quite a simple technology but I think it's tough for them to get the economies of scale they really need to be competitive as a display technology. I'm starting to see the older-style black and white eInk displays used as Electronic Shelf Labels more often now and I think it has to do with the patents finally expiring so you can buy the components from more than one supplier. The technology they're replacing, paper labels, costs thousands of dollars per week per store to update and more so when there are sale prices. The eInk displays cut most of those costs in favor of capital and then once in a blue moon battery replacements.

that is almost guaranteed an at-cost production figure for the limited run of kickstarter funded displays there isn't a production line producing these things - watch the youtube video this guy quit his job for over a year to build a passion project into a prototype

saw the video - that was so much better than this ieee link.

learnt a lot in the process too - kudos to him

The forge we deserve is the one that is built for jj and local review.

Tangled is built for jj :) We support stacking using jj change ids: https://blog.tangled.org/stacking

Is code review a first-class concept in Tangled?

Also, could you describe the current code-review process for Tangled in more detail please?

My belief is that code review should happen locally, and the unit of work being reviewed stays independent from unit of work being "submitted". The reviewer should be able - locally or in the WebUI - to specify a change-/revision-set (preferably via jj revset language), or add files to review ad-hoc, or even mark specific lines for review!

And then, assign comments to such a review unit - where changes are all being captured as a first-class object, with all the niceties that may come together, e.g.:

- comments are captured in the jj oplog as if they were code changes

- it's easy to surface (locally or in the WebUI) past code reviews

- it's easy to "untangle" and grasp which particular comment belongs to which code review

- [vague from my side] comment might belong to multiple code reviews, or might not; code review might belong to multiple revsets

Nobody who uses nix has ever had such problems.