torstenvl

Literally never heard that prior to hacking on the mg codebase.

I've used mg and find it generally useful. It's my default editor pretty much everywhere.

However, the code is a mess, with deliberately cryptic identifiers (e.g., `w_doto` for `cursorOffset`), redundant functions (e.g., `vtputc()` is a strict subset of the behavior of `vtpute()`) and a bunch of other weird choices (e.g., deeply-baked assumptions that one byte == one char == one column, even thought Big5 and ShiftJIS were already a thing when it was written).

I tried adding UTF-8 support to mg a couple years ago and basically gave up.

I'll probably be an atto convert.

Again, that is inarguably and obviously wrong. I cannot understand why you would say things you know to be false.

You seem to be conflating the act of writing to an arbitrary address with the act of assigning that arbitrary address to a pointer to begin with. They are distinct actions.

> it would be better if programmers read deliberate instances of UB as if they literally said "std::unreachable()"

Except that isn't true.

There are basically two kinds of undefined behavior.

The first is undefinable behavior, the kind that easily goes disastrously wrong, like writing to random memory locations.

The second is incidentally undefined behavior, something where there just isn't enough implementation consensus for the standard to settle on it, like realloc(p, 0).

There's no standard terminology I'm aware of to distinguish the two. But the distinction exists.

And where programmers read deliberate instances of UB, it's usually the latter, e.g., writing directly to an address memory mapped to device I/O in that particular environment.

That's the point.

In Coders at Work, Peter Seibel quotes Jamie Zawinski as saying that certain Netscape acquirees were people for whom "cross-platform means both Windows 3.1 and Windows 95."

I find that there are domains where LLMs are much faster and more skilled than I am, particularly in extremely well-documented but technical and complicated, but a lot of domains where they cannot do anything at all (mostly novel issues, weird architecture issue resolution, etc.).

Building a basic X11 window manager is almost a one shot prompt.

Modifying a UI toolkit to make it work with MSAA/IA2 is simply not possible.

There's a lot of room for deep work left... for now.

The data in that article support the opposite conclusion.

The reasoning the article takes to reach its incorrect conclusion is plainly erroneous. For example, it reasons that "Northern latitudes have later onset of winter sunrise and higher prevalence of SAD, with the latter increasing by 0.2% per 1° increase in latitude," ignoring that northern latitudes also have less sunlight overall.

My post did not ignore the position of the sun. Indeed, it's governed by it.

I am not interested in whatever you've got going on right now. Being dishonest about others' positions is bizarre. Refusing to clarify your own is bizarre. Let me know when you're willing to engage in good faith.

I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.

What possible meaning could the phrase "noon happens at noon" have? That's tautological and meaningless.

And if your solution requires a wholly independent, newly built mass coordination mechanism rather than just a minor tweak to the existing one, then I think the burden you bear for arguing your position is extremely high.

All of the science supports permanent daylight time.

Even this article, while stating the opposite conclusion, directly scientifically supports permanent daylight time as beneficial for most people.

It points out sunrise being at 0751 versus 0851 for Toronto. That's the anticipated sunrise time on 1 January 2027. The anticipated sunset time is 1651.

That means that someone working in a cubicle for a standard 0800-1700 schedule will get 9 minutes of possible daylight under winter time, versus 51 minutes under daylight time (sunrise 0851, sunset 1751).

Lack of sunlight leads to terrible circadian rhythms. There is absolutely zero scientific support for the proposition that nine minutes of daylight is healthier for our circadian rhythms than fifty-one minutes of daylight. No person could possibly argue such a thing in good faith.

(Also, I have a terminology quibble with "Standard Time," since Daylight Time is the actual standard, and we observe it eight months of the year.)

MetaFilter is by far the most anti-social group of moderators on any site in history.

I am immensely skeptical that any sizable company would be willing to do that.