There are a few terminals for the remarkable.

Soon after Remarkable 2 was released, a hacked version of Remarkable 1 was released that added pretty much all the feature upgrades. You needed to buy a new stylus (to use the new eraser end), but you could choose from dozens of brands since it's a widely used standard. The hardware looks slightly different and might have clock speed differences, but is essentially identical. And you don't have to deal with the silly subscription model of the 2. I use it to jot my thoughts down on PDFs in direct sunlight at the park. My macbook/ipad is pretty unusable in sunlight, unless you like squinting and straining. I also bought a smaller Mobiscribe (same thing but small), but I prefer the Remarkable still.

No, not necessarily. Various Smalltalks have a wide range of different approaches to UI and IO more generally. This (their "operating system aspect" https://eighty-twenty.org/2019/01/13/why-learn-smalltalk) is the area in which they're most diverse, in fact. For instance, GNU Smalltalk has, by default, only a REPL, while Smalltalk 80 has a bitmapped GUI.

Seeing an article about Smalltalk with Hernan presenting so up in HN is nice.

I worked with Hernan a while ago. We worked in a financial system with very cool things: an OO database, a workflow system that can work locally or remotely transparently, a good model for units and dates, tons of custom tools in the IDE (something that is only possible with Smalltalk IDEs) that allowed us to automate unit test generation, versioning, and database migrations. The last time I saw that level of productivity in any IDE was then.

However, Smalltalk is not perfect, and when I see these presentations, I cannot stop thinking that a more balanced discussion is needed.

The presentation shows how Smalltalk blocks are uniform with the if/then/while syntax. But that's only part of the history. To support blocks that way, the compiler optimizes those cases and inlines the block unless you do something else. So, while assigning the block to a variable looks the same, it's not executed similarly. That's the beauty of hiding the implementation details. But, sometimes, those details bite you. Most St programmers avoid creating custom "ifThen:else" messages because, in most VMs, that will break.

In other words, like any design decision, the simplicity of the "object message" syntax has trade-offs, too. The performance trade-off is fixed by having exceptional cases hidden from most programmers. The other trade-off is the need to always dispatch to a receiver. Compared to Lisp or other functional languages, the need for a receiver dramatically impacts how you design and structure your program. Many things that you can resolve with a polymorphic function need to spread across classes in St. And that introduces the problem of sharing the implementation: class hierarchies, traits, or composition. Resolving those problems with a simple function is refreshing and falls under the statement at the beginning of the talk: the programming language affects how you think about the problem. When I look at the code I wrote back then in Smalltalk or Java, I cannot stop thinking about how the restriction of using classes and methods adds unnecessary complexity.

Fortunately, the issue was reported in the proper / only place to get support from Google: the front page of Hacker News.

Righteous Victims has 2 whole chapters on the leadup to the Six Days War, which is like the centerpiece of the book. You can't be citing Righteous Victims, because it strenuously disagrees with virtually everything you've said here. What are you citing?

Yasser Arafat's letter to Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin of 9 September 1993:

> Mr. Prime Minister,

> The signing of the Declaration of Principles marks a new era in the history of the Middle East. In firm conviction thereof, I would like to confirm the following PLO commitments:

> The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security. The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.

> The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process, and to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations.

> The PLO considers that the signing of the Declaration of Principles constitutes a historic event, inaugurating a new epoch of peaceful coexistence, free from violence and all other acts which endanger peace and stability. Accordingly, the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline violators.

> In view of the promise of a new era and the signing of the Declaration of Principles and based on Palestinian acceptance of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid. Consequently, the PLO undertakes to submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant.

> Sincerely,

> Yasser Arafat, Chairman, The Palestine Liberation Organization

This is a very famous letter, by the way. It was sent at the beginning of the Oslo peace process, which was supposed to lead to a complete Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Palestinian territories within a matter of a few years. 30 years later, Israel still occupies the Palestinian territories (and has actually massively expanded its settlements inside those territories), and still has not recognized the Palestinians' right to a sovereign state.

It apparently does include the map of Palestine pre-Israel. This makes sense, in the very same way as the current Palestine protesters' slogan 'from the river to the sea', it's a reaction to the illegal settlement (which still has the same slogan based on their religion) and expresses the desire for liberation.

From the original 1977 manifesto of the current Likud party[1]:

> The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.

Ever heard of Nakba[2]? History of Palestine, how everyone was living peacefully under Ottoman rule and the current state of apartheid, that is, children's parks fenced and locked, keys given to Jewish mothers[3]? The civilian body count that has now exceeded 25 thousand, in a country with a median age of 19[4]?

1: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/original-party-platform... , also referenced in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea

2: https://www.un.org/unispal/about-the-nakba/

3: See with your own eyes, hear directly from the mouth of children: https://youtu.be/ksnLom8OD9E?si=aYvcLqcLQK960fbx

4: https://www.worldometers.info/demographics/state-of-palestin...