> It's the same class of bug as manually parsing HTML with regex, it works right up until it doesn't
I'm sure you already know this one, but for anyone else reading this I can share my favourite StackOverflow answer of all time: https://stackoverflow.com/a/1732454
Yeah, there's a good reason why I have a lot of criticisms about CSS and only some about, say, QT. It's because I spent the last 15+ years writing CSS in some way or another and one extended summer of hacking a side project in QT, abandoning it, and never looking back.
Completely agree. In uni, I (re)-learned about vectors in linear algebra, and for a good chunk of the course, we didn't write anything in "standard vector notation". We learned about vector axioms first, and then vectors were treated as "anything that satisfies the vector axioms". (When doing more practical examples, we just used the reals instead of something like R^3, but the entire time it was clear that for any proof, anything that can be added and multiplied in the way that the vector axioms describe would fit.) I think adopting this structuralist view really helps with a lot of mathematical studies.
I think more often than not, companies are using a single cloud provider, and even when multiple are used, it's either different projects with different legacy decisions or a conscious migration.
True multi-tenancy is not only very rare, it's an absolute pain to manage as soon as people start using any vendor-specific functionality.
Same boat, and if anything AI has made the "disentangling spaghetti code" part even more annoying. In the past, badly designed code at least hat the decency to also look bad on first glance.
Every time I read an apple press release, I immediately bounce off because of the purposeful omission of the definite article when referring to their products; like "iPhone Air features ..." instead of "The iPhone Air features ...".
It's irrational, but it's like an uncanny valley via text for me.
Ha, I actually thought about getting a Boox when I started spending some time in my garden to work this summer cause of that exact same reason. Good to hear that it's actually feasible.
1. The user hostile changes I mentioned were a degradation of the initial experience, i.e. herding people into Remarkable's Cloud offering which, while it allowed for grandfathering, still was very restrictive in what sync features are available. Also, for new customers buying a RM now means a monthly subscription cost, which is why I said can't recommend it.
2. Remarkable itself was using the openness of their tablet in their marketing. If I were to buy an iPhone and then complain about the walled garden, that would be one thing. If I buy a product that prides itself as being hackable, I don't think I'm wrong to expect that.
Lastly, saying "I can't recommend this because of XYZ" is a far cry from "trashing the company".
I have a Remarkable 2 that I used to use religiously, now use sporadically, but cannot recommend because of the user-hostile changes to the subscription and the very restrictive underlying software.
One of the promises that lead me to buy one was the hackability - "It's Linux!" "You can SSH into it!", which, on paper (heh) is still true, but in practice very much isn't.
I think something like a Boox, which runs Android, might be more open to customization, but for now I am back to pencil and paper. That doesn't run Linux, but it also won't change its terms of service anytime soon.