LibreBoot doesn't have that goal anymore, it now strives to be as blobless as possible. GNUBoot (edit: or CanoeBoot) is what LibreBoot used to be
chayleaf
joined 3 years ago
One of the creators said "that's not the original intention, but sure, you could read it that way too" in some interview
I mean it's probably been a couple years, which is precisely why I don't remember it, I probably would've if I'd started using it like 10 years ago
Did you first start with Vim or Neovim?
I probably started with Vim, but I honestly don't see much reason to use it over Neovim besides better out of the box fbcon support
Which does beg the question why the others haven't implemented such functionality (yet)?
Helix continues the work previously done by Kakoune (some people prefer Kakoune over Helix anyway). As to why - because it, like any other computer science topic, is a topic of active research, and Kakoune is the next generation of research into modal editing. Disclaimer: I use Neovim because it works well enough for me (it does offer more configurability, but I doubt I use it that much) and I don't want to learn another set of hotkeys (which is similar enough, but still different).
I shouldn't expect remote accessing some random server will allow me to use Helix, right?
That's right, but as a Neovim user, it's hard for me to use Vi, because it lacks many features, and I don't know which ones. When you start going from basic to advanced knowledge, it sadly doesn't translate. Of course, I would still pick Vi over Nano any day.
There's a similar problem with many shells (fish, readline (bash)) that don't fully implement Vim's features, so their Vi mode sucks, but I still use it.
Anecdotally, my vision was fine (well it was half farsighted half normal, now I'm half farsighted half nearsighted) until i started heavily using a computer. Plus what really makes your vision worse is eye strain (i.e. muscles around your eye contracting for extended periods of time) changing the shape of your eyeball, would be weird for prolonged screen use not to do that.
Freedom House is a bourgeois organization, and it doesn't lie, that's what's good about it. It truthfully tells you how free capitalists are to act as they please in a country. When they say "LGBT representation", they mean "freedom to open NGOs". When they say "democracy", they mean "freedom to lobby your interests in the parliament, to promote your candidates", etc. That's why I really like Freedom House and consider it a good source.
Unix epoch time is wrong too, as it doesn't include leap seconds, meaning your time difference will be off by up to 15 seconds.
yes, if that AUR was in a centralized git repository, and kept track of inter-package compatibility, and centrally cached prebuilt versions of the packages for every single update, and you could also easily modify any of the packages, and there was a way to autogenerate build scripts, and and and...
First, elimination of Israel is a good thing. Second, please show me the source.
Indeed, "terrorist attacks" have widely been performed by Palestinians and Palestinian liberation groups. Some were aimless, as they were just the spontaneous expression of the hatred of Palestinians towards Zionists. Some were quite purposeful (and it's not just Palestinians doing that, there were plenty of cases of e.g. terrorist attacks of Ukraine on many people in Russia, the most recent one I remember killed a former Ukraine deputy who defected to Russia, and the blowing up of the Crimea bridge may well be considered one) - with the purpose being anything from assassinations (like the assassination of the minister of tourism by PFLP, and I hope you won't claim Israel's government is innocent and shouldn't be targeted), to raising money, to political demands (the Japanese Red Army Faction hijacked some planes for ransom or to make the Japanese government release prisoners, or to make a point by flying one to DPRK), to perhaps the most objectionable purpose - intimidating Israelis to show that this isn't "their" land.
"Terrorist attacks" shouldn't be equated with each other - they should be looked at in the context of who's leading them, what's their purpose and means. If you reject "terrorist attacks", you're often rejecting the only means of partisan combat for heavily overwhelmed forces. Of course indiscriminate attacks on civilians are bad (though if civilians start shooting at you, you're forced to fight anyway), but, depending on the organization leading them, most terrorist attacks aren't that. There's of course also the wider problem that terrorist attacks can't be the only means towards an end, and don't make sense in a lot of cases. Whether Hamas or PFLP perform them is not up to me, I'll just trust that they know their options better than me. I'm not in a position to teach or moralize them.
I wouldn't change anything, maybe make it more generic so the user could e.g. pick dmenu or rofi instead of alacritty+fzf