flogic

The fundamental problem this argument has is that computers are in the world. Probably not to the degree required and certainly not up to AGI. But, self driving cars and Boston dynamics exist. The gap between "in the world" and not isn't some insurmountable barrier. It's an engineering problem that's been solved to varying degrees by engineers and hobbyists.

People deciding to stop working is a good thing. It means they have market power and potential employers need to take that into account.

I've written maps that I've regretted later. "map(+1, list)" isn't too bad. But as you chain things and/or put more in the lambda, it gets less comprehensible. Then, some cross cutting requirement comes in and you either need two map reduces or to just refactor to a loop.

Scripts are a subset of program focusing. The primary characteristic being they rely on another program to interpret the source at run time. Scripts also tend to be a problematic subset since libraries written in scripting languages tend to have poorly defined interfaces.

There are still 2 basic sources of benefit. First, power stations generally use turbines which are much more efficient than internal combustion engines. Even after accounting for inefficiencies electric often comes out better. The other benefit is that it decouples the vehicle from the energy source.

My keyboard is set up in a similar manner but it adds a point of complexity. Ctrl-Shift-Arrow is harder to use since the Fn key is trying to take up a thumb.

I'll give it points for the arrow keys. There just really isn't much in the way of good positions for arrow keys on a split layout. That said I don't like what it's doing with the thumbs. Thumbs want to move radially more than in and out.

Touch typing is one of those things it's easy to underestimate the importance of. I've been using computers heavily since the late 80's. But, I've only learned to touch type in the past couple of years. I'm going to be kicking myself over that for years to come. Programming isn't particularly better with touch typing. However, it's done wonders for my ability to communicate with others. It's really a must have skill.

Would say the best reason to try something weird is if the normal approach just isn't working. I never managed to touch type on a normal keyboard. Now that I'm using a split layout, I've learned to touch type. That makes it worth the weirdness for me.

Manufactured or pre-made split keyboards aren't cheap. However if you're making your own the costs aren't all that different. So it's easier to ignore the cost and effort if you're making a split keyboard. Also by definition, you're talking about someone willing to go down the less beaten paths.

I would love for split keyboard to become more mainstream. They're far superior to the traditional key layout. But if the sample set is customs, it's probably selection bias.

You can make a mechanical keyboards significantly quieter. Most of the noise isn't actually from the switches themselves but rather from the impact of the keys bottoming out into hard plastic. So a set or 2 of o-rings on the keys will really cut down on the noise.

When I get around to constructing my next custom. I'm going to use non-clicky switches with a thick acrylic plate and of course a set of o-rings. In theory, it should be very office acceptable.

Sadly, I use an Android and can't say if this is what I would want but it seems on a better path. Most things I've seen for Android are replicating a traditional graphing calculator. Which suffers from 2 major problems. One, graphing calculators already have confusing UIs. Two, the tiny buttons that work tolerably physically are much less tolerable on a touch screen.

This kinda captures one of my concerns. While I could care less about the particulars of how people interact with computers, I do find it concerning that modern devices seem to make general purpose computing less accessible. I love my phone but I haven't even found a decent calculator for it much less a tolerable equivalent of Excel, the shell, or programming environment. Part of me suspects it's an inherent limitation in touch IUs but that also seems like a cop out.

Personal experience tells me that size is probably a proxy for "this code is mathematically written". If you have even a vague idea of the math of the code you're writing, the code tends to be both shorter and have fewer bugs. But, I'd be wary of turning that around to a blanket endorsement of terseness. Terse code often needs to be restructured when requirements change. Restructuring takes more time and also risks adding new bugs. Then there are problems with readability during debugging and understanding interfaces.

It's been a while since I've used it but yum used to tie up my machine pretty badly on significant upgrades. After reboot it could take hours to finish applying the upgrade, during which time the machine was usable. Apt has never given me that sort of trouble.