I was on my 3rd Synology over the last 12 years or so. They were solid and something I didn't have to pay attention to.
But the drive lock-in tipped me over the edge when I needed to expand space. I'm getting burned out with all of these corporate products gradually taking away your control (Synology, Sonos, Harmony, etc.).
Even though it takes more time and attention, I ended up building my own NAS with ZFS on Debian using the old desktops I use for VMs. I did enjoy the learning experience, but I can't see it's that reasonable a use of time.
It doesn't seem like you're talking about the same thing the article is. Graham doesn't say "you must be a good writer to be a good thinker".
> This is only true of writing that's used to develop ideas, though. It doesn't apply when you have ideas in some other way and then write about them afterward — for example, if you build something, or conduct an experiment, and then write a paper about it. In such cases the ideas often live more in the work than the writing, so the writing can be bad even though the ideas are good.
Writers who have trouble expressing thoughts in a non-native language are not actually developing the idea in that language. That doesn't mean they are producing bad ideas, but it _might_ mean they won't produce good writing (in that non-native language).
I took the essay to be highlighting that if you use writing as a tool for thinking, clunky writing is likely to highlight places where your ideas themselves aren't clear or correct yet. The iterative process of refining the writing to "sound good" will help shape the ideas.
This seems to be a commonly expressed idea in other forms. For example, when thinking through ideas in code, the process of making the code more "beautiful" can also result in a clearer expression of more correct ideas.
> The problem stems from the fact that Unicode encodes characters rather than "glyphs," which are the visual representations of the characters. There are four basic traditions for East Asian character shapes: traditional Chinese, simplified Chinese, Japanese, and Korean. While the Han root character may be the same for CJK languages, the glyphs in common use for the same characters may not be. For example, the traditional Chinese glyph for "grass" uses four strokes for the "grass" radical [⺿], whereas the simplified Chinese, Japanese, and Korean glyphs [⺾] use three. But there is only one Unicode point for the grass character (U+8349) [草] regardless of writing system. Another example is the ideograph for "one," which is different in Chinese, Japanese, and Korean. Many people think that the three versions should be encoded differently.
That's not what happened. Downstream was building from source, that source just had malicious code in it.
One part was binary, the test file (pretty common), but checked into the repo. One part was in the build config/script, but was in the source tarball and not in the repo.
Git would make you merge or rebase, but yes there wouldn't be a conflict. They're saying Pijul would let you directly push without having to deal with the diverging histories.
https://git-scm.com/docs/git-history
https://www.jj-vcs.dev/latest/cli-reference/#jj-describe
https://www.jj-vcs.dev/latest/cli-reference/#jj-split