pixelscript

If you're not measuring for cooking, why are you measuring? Being that accurate for casual consumption is strange.

Happy Debian daily driver here. I would never ever recommend raw Debian to a garden variety would-be Linux convert.

If you think something like Debian is something a Linux illiterate can just pick up and start using proficiently, you're severely out of touch with how most computer users actually think about their machines. If you even so much as know the name of your file explorer program, you're in a completely different league.

Debian prides itself on being a lean, no bloat, and stable environment made only of truly free software (with the ability to opt-in to nonfree software). To people like us, that's a clean, blank canvas on a rock-solid, reliable foundation that won't enshittify. But to most people, it's an austere, outdated, and unfashionable wasteland full of flaky, ugly tooling.

Debian can be polished to any standard one likes, but you're expected to do it yourself. Most people just aren't in the game to play it like that. Debian saddles questions of choice almost no one is asking, or frankly, even knew was a question that was ask*-able*. Mandatory customizeability is a flaw, not a feature.

I am absolutely team "just steer them to Mint". All the goodness of Debian snuck into their OS like medicine in a kid's dessert, wrapped up in something they might actually find palatable. Debian itself can be saved for when, or shall I say if, the user eventually goes poking under the hood to discover how the machine actually ticks.

The "lonely" part of the name comes from how they're the only player in the industry trying to do what they do.

I have never been in or adjacent to a situation where I had to measure chocolate packaged and sold to be eaten as-is in a recipe by squares broken off of a bar, at the demarcations pre-scored into the bar. If I needed that much control I'd grate it or use a chocolate that came pre-granulated, like baking kisses.

For chocolate bars meant to be eaten, the score lines are very much for sharability first. Any use of them for culinary measurement is at best a peripheral feature.

This probably doesn't hold true for baking chocolate. But Tony's isn't baking chocolate.

Everything works the same, times of website incompatibility are long gone.

Not completely true. It's mostly true. I've daily driven Firefox for years, and the number of websites I've crossed that wouldn't function in it correctly but would work just fine in Chrome was very slim... but not zero. Definitely not comparable to the complete shitshow of the 90's and 00's. That's true. But it's not a completely solved problem.

And with Mozilla's leadership practically looking for footguns to play with combined with the threat of Google's sugar daddy checks drying up soon due to the antitrust suit (how utterly ironic that busting up the monopoly would actually harm the only competition...), that gap can get much worse in very little time if resources to keep full time devs paid disappear.

I recently had a rather baffling experience trying to preemptively avoid this by downloading the stupid app right away, only to discover I needed the website version anyway.

I was attempting to add my Known Traveler Number to an already booked trip with Southwest Airlines, booked by someone else. I was able to link the trip to my account right away in the app, no issue. And I could see the KTN field for my ticket sitting there, empty, greyed-out, and not interactible. I opened up the moble version of their website, completely unsurprised to find it was identical to the app, except for the detail that the KTN field there was functional. Put in the information, changes reflected in the app instantly, and I was in the TAS-pre line that afternoon.

Why did the two versions obviously built from the same codebase have two different sets of capabilities? Why was the website the more capable of the two this time? I have no clue. All I know is I never want to be a developer at a corporation where I'd have to be responsible for this flavor of trash.

The more egalitarian principle would be to not assume. I won't deny that. People from more minority locales have every right to be upset at being marginalized.

But at the same time, whenever I read passive aggressive comments on socials from residents of crown countries or from EAASL people around the world bitching about US defaultism as if people are doing it just to be ignorant dicks, I can only think to myself, "Uhh, hello? What do you think the demographics of this space were? What did you expect?"

Americans are hardly the majority of the world's English speakers, but for all the reasons you listed, they tend to remain a massive plurality, if not an outright overwhelming majority, of any mainstream online English language platform. No, that's not a license to perpetuate US defaultism. But like... read the room, people. Your good fight is far more uphill than you seem to think it is.

I've seen at least one company press kit in rules on how to display their logo refer to it as "respect distance".

For anyone who was using K-9 wondering why Thunderbird looks no different, it's because they aren't different.

They build both apps from the exact same codebase. Only difference between the two are the default color scheme, the branding icons, and the text strings of the application's name. It's literally just a choice of which brand skin you prefer.

Which, honestly, kinda cool. A virtually zero-cost way to keep a few K-9 stans happy.

If adblockers would allow ads that adhere to the acceptable ads criteria, the world would be a better place. Less paywals, less ads and maybe some companies would pay their employees a little bit more.

I disagree. The system may have began in earnest goodwill, but financial incentive inevitably erodes goodwill. ABP becomes incentivized to adapt its definition of "acceptable" based on potential revenues they stand to gain from increasingly persuasive advertisers. Your vision of a better world under this system is at best temporary.

The alternative model, simply paying for goods and services directly, is a far more robust solution.

It's also part of what makes FOSS niche.

I recognize three kinds of comments that have different purposes.

The first kind are doc block comments. These are the ones that appear above functions, classes, class properties, methods. They usually have a distinct syntax with tags, like:

/*
 * A one-line description of this function's job.
 *
 * Extra details that get more specific about how to use this function correctly, if needed.
 *
 * @param {Type} param1
 * @param {Type} param2
 * returns {Type}
 */
function aFunctionThatDoesAThing(param1, param2) {
    // ...
}

The primary thing this is used for is automatic documentation generators. You run a program that scans your codebase, looks for these special comments, and automatically builds a set of documentation that you could, say, publish directly to a website. IDEs can also use them for tooltip popups. Generally, you want to write these like the reader won't have the actual code to read. Because they might not!

The second kind is standalone comments. They take up one or more lines all to themselves. I look at these like warning signs. When there's something about the upcoming chunk of code that doesn't tell the whole story obviously by itself. Perhaps something like:

/* The following code is written in a weird way on purpose.
I tried doing <obvious way>, but it causes a weird bug.
Please do not refactor it, it will break. */

Sometimes it's tempting to use a standalone comment to explain what dense, hard-to-read code is doing. But ideally, you'd want to shunt it off to a function named what it does instead, with a descriptive doc comment if you can't cram it all into a short name. Alternatively, rewrite the code to be less confusing. If you literally need the chunk of code to be in its confusing form, because a less confusing way doesn't exist or doesn't work, then this kind of comment explaining why is warranted.

The last kind are inline comments. More or less the same use case as above, the only difference being they appear on the same line as code, usually at the very end of the line:

dozen = 12 + 1; // one extra for the baker!

In my opinion, these comments have the least reason to exist. Needing one tends to be a signal of a code smell, where the real answer is just rewriting the code to be clearer. They're also a bit harder to spot, being shoved at the ends of lines. Especially true if you don't enforce maximum line length rules in your codebase. But that's mostly personal preference.

There's technically a fourth kind of comment: commented-out code. Where you select a chunk of code and convert it to a comment to "soft-delete" it, just in case you may want it later. I highly recommend against this. This is what version control software like Git is for. If you need it again, just roll back to it. Don't leave it to rot in your codebase taking up space in your editor and being an eyesore.