Better names for a free geospatial tile format:
* Grout
* Watershed
* TesseraTile
* Dodeca
* RandomName7
A lot of people have spent a lot of time (accurately) pointing out how badly HS2 has gone and why. Very few people have pointed out a viable and concrete alternative.
- Decide your changes are perfect, so add a commit message to this one and then create a new one on to to carry on
- Decide you only want some of them so use `jj split -i` to select which ones you want and then it creates two commits - the stuff you want in a new named commit, and the stuff you didn't in a new working copy commit. This is the JJ workflow equivalent to `git add -p` adding to the staging area then committing
Also, if you do physically connect to a headless machine, it's nice to not need to keep having to open a new getty session (or be able to log out of a session) ;)
I don't use a tiling WM, and tmux[1] does an excellent job at the tiling features.
I do the majority of my work physically at a Linux (Fedora) desktop, but I also work from home SSH'd to that desktop. Being able to just attach to the same session and pick up where I left off, with all the same shell management, is great.
[1] I used tmux for years, but have very recently switched to Zellij. I find the pane navigation to be much smoother (and more discoverable).
Many a spacecraft telemetry stacks work like that.
If you do this you also need to be careful of byte order.
20% more expensive and 99.9% of people buy the $500 one instead of the $600 one.
Never make the mistake of falling for people's virtue signalling and pay attention instead to how they actually apply those virtues (spoiler: saving money is the #1 acted upon virtue, being far stronger than any other).
It comes up again and again, and is a culture clash that is not limited to but particularly prevalent between US and European perspectives.
US sports tend to have less meaningful "regular" seasons, which just seed "play-offs", which themselves often have "Best of X series".
All of that is designed to maximise the chance that the "winner" and the "best team" are aligned.
Meanwhile in UK competitions, an entire yearly competition can be decided by a bad 90 minutes, such as ManU losing to York City, something the fans of both sides likely still remember 30 or so years later.
This argument frequently plays out in e-sports, which still try to find a good balance between the two, with the "best players should win" crowd wanting anti-climatic double-elimination, and the "Let's have more meaningful games" crown preferring single elimination.
"Competitions should be designed to find who the best team is" is a statement that many would agree with, but "Competitions should provide excitement and allow for upsets" is one I think is just as important, if not more so.
Another similar culture-clash is the concept of relegation versus franchising, as well as the concept of "drafting" in a (failed?) attempt to even out the competition.
Except if you look at the NFL - the most popular sport in the US by far - the playoffs are "Best of 1". The NFL also enforces very close parity which gives a lot of unpredictability. You combine those and you get a lot of upsets.
You don't want it too low, because then quality becomes meaningless. You do want to give good results to good teams. But there is also don't want it to be perfect - you want some unpredictability in sports. You don't want every match to be a foregone conclusion, and you want every supporter to be able to have some reasonable hope.
There is some data suggesting that one of the reasons that English football is popular is because it's low scoring. This increases the chance that random variation gives an "incorrect" result. In this hypothesis, unpredictability adds excitement and builds popularity.
The NFL achieves similar results a different way - various forms of consistency and negative feedback (salary cap, draft order, schedule) to keep teams very close in ability. This means that small differences like a game plan for a particular week can regularly affect results, and keeps predictability low.
This is such a lame response to valid criticism.
Key remapping is not a feature that you need hardware support for and neither are macros - both can be done in the OS and/or user-space software. Different prints on key caps are also not important at all since you shouldn't need them in the first place and hardly a response to someone being unhappy with the physical keyboard layout. So basically you're saying that because Framework already provides the easy parts that the user could already do in software now no one is allowed to complain about the physical layout that users cannot alter.
> numpad input module
You can literally add a physical numpad if you want: https://frame.work/gb/en/products/16-numpad?v=FRAKDM0001