Zed has built in support for accessing ai models. You don’t have to use the ai features. But if you do, zed can’t be seen suggesting it’s okay to abuse the Claude api for legal reasons.
Well sure, I’m not trying to say that the internet is less capable generally now than in the past.
I’m suggesting that the way you build an app is shaped by the prevalence of NAT, the same way the apps you build are shaped by how much bandwidth home users have for devices.
Some types of apps benefit from p2p functionality, and those hit obstacles for normal users due to port forwarding requirements, and are largely impossible which CG. I don’t think NAT is a villain, just something that does affect what and how we build stuff.
People posting have mentioned that IPv4 is working for what they use the internet for. But of course it is. When NATs has been required for your whole life, how could the internet have built features that needed p2p routing? Just convince businesses to build something that requires special router configuration? And still wouldn’t work on phones or with ISPs that require CG NAT? You got what worked out of the box. You obviously couldn’t use what didn’t exist.
Did something new happen with paint.net? Or just a post to remind us?
I love paint.net. Recently purchased a windows store license for it. Clearly a winner for most of the image editing needs I have, for things like basic cropping, dpi changes, or changing formats. I treat it like I did GraphicConverter on Mac. Just a beloved image tool.
Lately I’ve been using it for simple file conversion with roll20, to hand-tune my assets for small downloads with webp.
Do you have any evidence to back up the claim that the async efforts have taken away from other useful async features?
Also, lots of major rust projects depend on async for their design characteristics, not just for the significant performance improvements over the thread-based alternatives. These benefits are easy to see in just about any major IO-bound workload. I think the widespread adoption of async in major crates (by smart people solving real world problems) is a strong indicator that async is a language feature that is "actually useful".
The fight is mostly on hackernews and reddit, and mostly in the form of people who don't need async being upset it exists, because all the crates they use for IO want async now. I understand that it isn't fun when that happens, and there are clearly some real problems with async that they are still solving. It isn't perfect. But it feels like the split over async that is apparent in forum discussions just isn't nearly as wide or dramatic in actual projects.
Yeah, the rod did nothing. I also think it would be odd to assume that this thing is single-phase.
As other have suggested, compaction is potentially needed to transport waste from the deeper parts. But there are several security considerations of just ejecting trash as-is from a high security area. I imagine a trash compactor is also a way to destroy the trash to prevent the old “spy tosses a data device into the prisoner cell block waste chute and have his allies follow the death star to pick it up during ejection”.