I leaped to Linux a few years back. One of the best moves in my life. The speed, the reaction time, the lack of bloat.
I side-car'ed a Mac for some apps that could not go through (e.g. for audio work, which Linux has some difficulties with, and lacks a lot of good apps for), but even that went smoothly because it had far less bloat and was already very UNIX-y.
I really don't get having a ton of MD files lying around. And the possibility of having to edit a thousand MD files when the metadata frontmatter changes.
A single SQLite database implements columns/metadata handling, and comes baked-in with FTS and BM25 ranking too.
> LLMs are terrible at accurately summarizing anything. They very randomly latch on to certain keywords and construct a narrative from them, with the result being something that is plausibly correct but in which the details are incorrect, usually subtly so, or important information is omitted because it wasn't part of the random selection of attention.
I don't know what you've been doing, but the summaries I get from my LLMs have been rather accurate.
And in any event, summaries are just that - summaries.
They don't need to be 100% accurate. Demanding that is unreasonable.
The newest Macbooks have insanely powerful hardware (I have an M4 Macbook Max). Yet they do not feel as speedy or instant on my machines with i3. There's always a perceivable milliseconds of latency, with response time from the keyboard to the screen. As someone who has tons of key bindings, I find this tolerable, but it can get a bit grating compared to just how instantaneous everything is on my Linux.
The one interesting thing (as a heavy user of both OSes) is that since the past decade there now are plenty of high-quality games (if those count for apps) on the Linux, that still don't work as well or as plentifully on Mac.
Linux is bound to be the number one gaming machine in time; general apps aside.
While I agree with the sentiment, I have hesitation in letting people see what I read.
In a way, you're letting people see the nature of things that you read - from which they might glean the nature of your thoughts, and privacy is something we all value. For that reason (and since I don't have any particular sentimental value for books, only their contents) I've long since preferred a digital library. As a minimalist, having a single Kindle on the table is aesthetics enough for me, which is complementary of the minimalist viewpoint as well.
However, I completely agree with the fact that having a physical library is a very conducive environment for kids to grow up with. I remember fun memories of my childhood reading from the home library, and thinking how pretty and colourful the shelves were too. But I think there should be a distinction between cultivating a library for your kids, versus that for the observation and assessment of strangers.
You take a morally superior position, and you are condescending.
As if discussions and examples using imaginary characters are somehow 'lowly', and can't be used as a fair commentary of society.
In comparison, Plato's works often feature dialogues where characters, including Socrates, engage in arguments, which present various perspectives on philosophical issues through fictionalized conversations. That style of writing and the use of imaginary characters in argumentative discourse is actually hallmark of Plato's work.
The OP's style of writing (who you responded to) is therefore not out of the ordinary; just because you disagree with his or her "perceptions of the world" doesn't mean you should put it down as unworthy of reply for using "imaginary characters".
It wasn't about the tradeoffs that the Windows Terminal team "can not make" - it was about alternative optimizations and performance concerns that they arrogantly refused to consider as being possible, and which ought to have been considered if they were being properly competent.
Engineering tradeoffs are real. But hiding behind them every time when it can be pointed out that they don't actually apply - and when demonstrated with concrete evidence - is another thing altogether.
I've been subscribed to IntelliJ close to 8 years now.
The one reason why I tolerate IntelliJ's subscription/pricing model is that unlike Adobe, they actually do deliver constant and worthwhile updates. Their software also rarely crashes, and their universal workflow (across different languages, themes, key bindings, plugins) also works as promised.
If not for the above the subscription would be a very hard sell for me.
< I also wonder why engineers are OK with the concept of technical abstractions, but are somehow in despair when business people use business abstractions. Most people here understand how abstractions are useful.
Because business 'abstractions' are often buzzwords or intentional jargon, that hide the simplicity of what actually lies underneath. Whereas software abstractions are genuine abstractions of the complex mechanism that underlie software.
I side-car'ed a Mac for some apps that could not go through (e.g. for audio work, which Linux has some difficulties with, and lacks a lot of good apps for), but even that went smoothly because it had far less bloat and was already very UNIX-y.