Even though the never type has been experimental for a while, I've seen `!` used in the docs,[0] so at this point, Rust developers are probably already aware of what it means even if they haven't used it before.
In addition to making the sidebar dismissable on small screens, it'd be nice to add touch-action: none to the canvas so rotating the object doesn't get interpreted as a scroll on touchscreens.
Right now, at least in Android Chrome, dragging to rotate only works briefly before it's interrupted.
That wouldn't be open source. OSI includes the clause "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor"[0] for its definition of open source. Famously, the JSON license[1] has a clause "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil," so the Free Software Foundation considers it nonfree.[2]
Arguably, any such clauses - similar to attempt for "non commercial" licenses would do more harm than good.
If you actually wanted to respect such a license,you would have to endlessly argue what is dual use technology for example, the same as people argue if advertisements on project website or tangentially related donations make the thing "commercial"?
While at the same time, any "bad guys" will just ignore both.
I've contemplated writing an email to RMS asking him how he feels about the use of GNU software in military and surveillance systems and if he could do it over if he would do things differently to alllow users to put a clause in their OSS licenses that forbid such things.
This line of reason is one I find appealing but somewhat untimely. If I'm grokking the deeper message it's that "limiting licensed use in these creative ways opens the door to potentially evil chicanery" -- i.e. you start limiting licenses to non-police activities and then some corporation goes "great! now that we can do that our licenses now limit usage to only endeavors that boil your firstborn and undermine our competition".
Problem is in era de la grift we've sort of realized that they never needed permission - there's no precedent to set anymore.
Call that "deeper message" A1. He's got arguments A1 and A2, and goes "if P, then A1(P) implies C; and if ¬P, then A2(¬P) implies C; therefore C". But we can just as easily go "if ¬P, then A1(¬P) implies ¬C" (as you did); "and if P, then A2(P) implies ¬C; therefore ¬C". Logical arguments don't let you do this: the arguments are pure rhetoric.
Quite a lot of Richard Stallman's arguments are pure rhetoric, actually. And, I mean, I guess it worked, in that the GPL and FSF ended up being quite influential; but the trouble with building a philosophy on rhetoric is that people start to believe that rhetoric – including you –, and it erodes and replaces the foundations of their beliefs, so it'll all come crashing down sooner or later.
I don't really think we need to engage with the rhetoric on an intellectual level, since it's obviously wrong: far better to read philosophers whose reasoning is sound, or to come up with your own ideas.
Sorry, but you must be way smarter than me or something because that made no sense. Not that I don't understand what that notation is supposed to mean, but that I'm not seeing the connective tissue here. It's also a little weird to come at me based on the 'erosion of my foundation of beliefs', considering how orthogonal that is to the topic of legal precedent and contracts.
For what it's worth, what I do believe is that our system of law was a good idea at one point but is totally ineffectual in the current context - that's my point about an era of grifters. Didn't get that one from stallman, measured that on the eyeball mark I.
This is the first time my poor communication skills have been interpreted as a sign of my superior intelligence. I think I'm ready to become a professional expert consultant!
I was abstracting Richard Stallman's argument to its (il)logical structure: P and ¬P are whether the license restriction is enforceable, etcetera. "Erosion" was talking about people who, seeing free software as a good idea, begin to adhere to Stallmanite orthodoxy (which is, largely, philosophically-unsound): that was not aimed at you, but at Richard Stallman himself (the Ur-Stallmanite, we could say). I saw this as generalising your criticism. I didn't notice you were making a broader point about the law, so this was somewhat of a supercalifragilisticexpialidocious non-sequitur; thanks for clarifying your point.
Ah! Sincere apologies for being defensive. Yeah, I share your eye when it comes to orthodoxy in most if not all areas - wary. The problem with any orthodoxy is that it's dumb - not as in 'stupid' but as in 'doesn't think or adapt to changing circumstances'.
Being the most correct 20 years ago is fairly meaningless today - not making a judgement on whether D-Stall is, was, or wasn't. But it's important I think to deal with reality. Thanks for your clarification!
The idea that a defense manufacturer would be stopped by this is too funny. The code won't be auditable by you so how will you know? Secondly even if you did find out the most you'd get is a payout. Thirdly if you believe that missile aren't running GNU/Linux I have a bridge to sell you.
I use dontAsk mode[0] with read access to the entire file system, write access to files from the working directory[1], some git commands (git commit yes, git push no), and a script wrapping Deno with the same read/write permissions (safer substitute for `python -c`).
These are usually enough for most of my coding tasks. In my experience, Claude has been good enough that it can write code and fix bugs without needing anything else. It's far better than ever needing to approve permission requests.
There's several web APIs for browser window positioning, like screenX/Y[0] (which is what OP uses), which allows for those classic pop-up based browser games from over a decade ago, like Browser Ball.[1]
While providing this information to websites without user permission is probably a longstanding mistake of web browsers, windowing systems withholding proper on-screen positioning from native applications is a bug in that system - a bad one.
Are these broken popup menus and combo box dropdowns with us in the room right now?
Yes, some things in some complex applications can break, but there are solutions and, practically, these particular things you listed simply aren't among those that break.
GNOME Files (nautilus) made the file property dialog a modal because they really want it to be centered relative to the file browser window and wayland didn't let them position or obtain coordinates.
The result is that you can't open open two file property dialogs at once (to compare sizes or dates or any other meta data, it's a common thing one might want to do).
Hopefully you'd agree that Wayland should allow apps to position windows relative to their own windows, at the very least.
With Dolphin file manager on Wayland this works for me as expected, a new window opens in the centre of the file browser window, no matter the size or position of the window.
I didn't do any actual testing but I wonder what the difference is.
For example, the VS Code menu bar is broken because the drop-downs clip against the window frame, not the screen edges. The reason is different in this case, though (electron).
It's not "my broken popup menus" since I'm not writing your app. This is some of the most basic portable software 101 I can't believe a real developer would complain about it.
If you do have that attitude there are a million other OOP style things to throw out for speed and correctness before virtual monitors and coordinating compositors
Video generation models generate videos of a predetermined duration, so if a character finishes a line but there's still seconds remaining, then the model still has to fill it in
[0]: Here’s a visual: https://gunn-gatm.github.io/textbook/gatm.pdf#page=28
reply