Metus

Notice that most of the examples have none of the green highlight counter, which is shown for

> small losses. KEEPING SCORE: The Dow Jones industrial average rose 32 points, or 0.2 percent, to 18,156 as of 3:15 p.m. Eastern time. The Standard & Poor’s ... OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — Warren Buffett’s company has bought nearly

the other sentences are in contrast to show how specific this neuron is.

> No, it's not. Seeds and even embryos are to DNA what a running piece of software (and especially, a Lisp/Smalltalk image) is to its source code: the latter stores only a fraction of the former.

Thank you for pointing out this similarity. While a piece of software is infinitely replicable - a simple git clone from GitHub would suffice -, the surrounding software ecosystem - compilers, interpreters, installers, linkers, operating systems - needs to be in place, as well as the hardware.

> Interesting. Gets you wondering what else you might not have heard of.

Consider how much of a rabbit hole YouTube can be and then imagine that the subsection of humanity that uses or is able to use YouTube is just a small part of it. A few topics and projects get a lot of attention but there are - I suppose - millions more with a dedicated fan base.

> I keep and grow as much seed as possible. It is the only way to adapt plants to your local environment and farming methods and needs. I get plants that are much easier to grow, then breed for taste or other features. Thats how the heirlooms were created.

Do you actively select and breed the plants you grow, or does the selection happen "by itself" since only plants that are somehow adapted to local condition reach maturity?

> It's a shame, really, because DANE would've fixed so many problems.

It would basically make services like Let's Encrypt unnecessary and would move us close to a world where email encryption and validation works by default.

Some applications make use of this macOS feature, like CheatSheet or Shortcat. I wish other platforms had a similar feature, I only know of vaguely similar behaviour in Vim/Emacs which which-key.

Restricting read access is one of the missing features in monorepos. While they make a lot of stuff easier and trackable, I don't feel comfortable having every temporary consultant having access to all code at once.

Some stuff I'd love to see implemented:

- Typed inputs and IntelliSense. There is very basic support for types, even so, I'd love even more strict types and type inference as in Typescript, so my terminal and shell can give me a hint what kind of input the command is expecting. At the same time, IntelliSense should tell me what command flags are still available and what are viable inputs, like cd suggesting only directories, or kubectl --namespace suggesting available namespaces.

- A concept of past commands as building blocks and/or interactive data wrangling. Many times I am mucking around in zsh to find a chain of commands that reliably gets the data I need out of some CSV or other source, retyping the same few commands with some new links until it works the way I want it to.

- A command like EXPLAIN in SQL so I can see where I should rethink what I am doing so I can refactor that part of the chain. At the same time, I'd love it if I could take one of those magic snippets from Stack Overflow and have an EXPLAIN-like command pick the components apart and explain the flags via some structured docstring format.

- Snippets in the Shell for some regularly used patterns of command chains.

- The concept of transactions, like in SQL, so I can run a command or script without worrying about it failing halfway through - the shell automatically undoing its changes. Maybe this should work on the level of a shell session even.

> There's a whole other rant I have about this problem, where we really lack domain specific trust standards - i.e. communicating with a business, what I want to know is "is this a recognized legal business entity in it's jurisdiction, and what's it's status to mine?"

I have the same pain, but this seems more like a regulatory issue than a technological one. Here in Germany, (basically all) legal entities need to publish a physical adress where they are reachable, it would be easy, in theory, to extend this to a reachable domain or email adress, thereby giving a guarantee, at least in Germany, that you are interacting with the business you are expecting. As you said, DKIM already exists.

Unless I have missed your point, then rant away.

> (2) Signal has no system by which you can communicate to "conceptual entities" - i.e. companies.

This has always kind of bugged me with email as compared to physical mail: While with a physical mailbox I can write a letter "to whom it may concern" and throw it in, with email I need to find out if the special, general purpose inbox is info@, contact@, hello@, or whatever other address the company uses, assuming they use the same domain for their email as they do for their website.

On the next level, there is no first-class support for stuff like 'send this message to person X, although it is adressed to organisation Y, where X works.' Basically, acknowledging the legal and organisational reality that while (single) humans might read, process and respond to communication, it is the legal entity that is actually being adressed.

In theory the giants that already hold the vast majority of all email communications - like Microsoft and Alphabet - are in a prime position to introduce a successor, hopefully this time with a receipt so the last argument in favour of fax dies off. At the same time, they have no proper motivation to do so.

I don't think that Signal is a proper substitute for anything that email is used for. Maybe it would be better to work on more secure successors or extensions to email.

I have similar doubts as well. Especially considering that digital signatures and encryption do not protect against impersonation attacks, like phishing via facebok.com or other similar sounding domains, in either the case of websites or email. But without widespread use you don't even have the option.

One of the largest holes in encrypted communication is still the fact that the vast majority of email is still neither digitally signed, nor encrypted. And even if they are, the usual schemes do not encrypt the subject line.

I wish there was something like Let's encrypt but for email. Just make it trivial to sign and encrypt your mail. Also, mail clients should give a huge warning for unencrypted and/or unsigned mail, just like browsers do with web sites. Right now, at least on Outlook for macOS, you only get a happy green padlock on signed email, if you ever receive one.

I always disliked that it was so difficult to interact with Word if you wanted to create automated documents. Instead I'd love it if there was a developer-first experience to create standardised documents from nice looking participation certificates, invoices, memos, documentation up to multi-tome histories.