moses-palmer

I have been using Linux / GNOME as my primary environment for the last 20 years, but at my current job, that was not an option, so I'm on macOS.

I tried for a week to get used to the unfamiliar key bindings for text input, but then I gave up—I'm a vim user after all!—and found a system setting to use the bindings I am more familiar with. This was picked up by many applications, but notably _not_ by the Microsoft suite, which appears to have the default macOS bindings hard coded...

Well, to be fair, then it's precisely a theoretical concern about hardware sovereignty.

How curious! So am I, and that is the project that I am the closest to regretting open sourcing.

I made the mistake of also implementing keyboard and mouse monitoring---you know, so I could write automated tests for the input parts!---and over the years it has turned into an endless source of feature requests, bug reports and also general questions about the Python programming language and its ecosystem.

Input events truly are horrible to provide a platform independent abstraction over, but in the end seeing people use it, make YouTube tutorials and discuss it on Stack Overflow make it worth the time spent.

I don't speak Farsi, but some Arabic, and the Farsi alphabet is related.

The letters are completely different in pronunciation: with one dot, it's like the English letter B, and with two it's either like Y or the pronunciation of double E.

I, personally, think you can have nice things like this and they will not get abused. If the right to forage mushrooms on a non-industrial scale, or to walk along the shore next to a house without disturbing the inhabitants is given, in my experience people will respect the limitations.

It appears that the laws where I live are quite similar to those in Estonia in this aspect, and I have never heard of any real abuse.

I read the article twice, because the link title made me think that I as an open source contributor and publisher liable for complaints.

My reading of the text is that the one actually selling the software product is the one having to abide by this law. Am I incorrect?

How could this be negative? I presume that most publishers of open source software would prefer that some Silicon Valley Unicorn did _not_ half-heartedly integrate their library, causing security issues and tainting their library name?

The main application is actually a thin wrapper around a library that does exactly that, so the best way would be to not perform the final step of turning the data structure into an image.

A kind soul contributed an update to the README---basically the output of `cargo run --bin maze-maker -- --help.

I guess today's lesson is: do promote your personal project even when it's semi-arsed, because people on the Internet are mostly kind and will help you improve your documentation!

No, you'll have to exercise your own CPU I'm afraid!

My favourite part of the article, hailing from a part of the world _sans raton laveur_, was the explanation of "Raccoon trouble" for purchasing a lot of potatoes. What's with raccoons and potatoes?

And of you would consider it taboo, would you still if the same generic sequence were found in another species?