That fills me with determination.
That fills me with determination.
Was the solution there to just boot an older/previous kernel?
I wonder if there is a point where the graphs of “perceived effect on the water” cross for both this experiment and homeopathy, and what that means.
Probably understood that in the wrong direction. Ze (eng. phon.) would be spelled more like “sie” (ger. phon.) and would sound like “the” with a German accent. They would become either dey (eng. phon.) or zey (eng. phon.), spelled like “deej” or “seej” (ger. phon.), or even without the y (or j) at the end.
I think. I’m neither native German or English.
As Flatfire mentions, another issue can arise if plugins can modify the config. I assumed config to be read-only for the software, only editable by the admins, and never by the tools themselves.
I’d try to share the config space as much as possible. Options 1 and 3 make sense then.
What feels “right” to me, when using NixOS and its module system, is that all config has the same shape, and is therefor easily moved to a different section, or to a section that is shared by a subset of plugins.
Con: It could lead to bad practices like strengthening dependencies between plugins (if they hard code to use a specific config option of another plugin).
Pro: But if you can discourage that, or use “deprecated pointers” to the new location of an option, the ease of moving shared config options to a more generic level can make it easier to maintain the total configuration. Developers of the separate plugins can build on what others have already done, and even synergize functionality (add a convenient integration if they see another option configured).
If some options are “secret”, though, and you don’t want those shared, they should either be in their own config (easier), or you’d need some access control on the configuration storage/file for each plugin (more work). Allowing a plugin to have a separate file for credentials, for instance, could be a good choice.
Excuse me, sir, this is a well-respected barbershop.
That is an interesting source. Thanks for the link!
That’s why you feed that flame once in a while.
I read every line as 4 syllables of which the 2nd and 4th are stressed. The last line is 7 syllables and can be read as two more lines of 4 beats: (pause) I am AN / aus-TRA-li-AN.
Fits perfectly that way in my opinion.
This is still salvageable by pronouncing it as “an earl”.
Syllables, LSD to MSD.
I agree, and I love how it has these younger words with a vivid etymology, how it shares so many common roots with English, German, the Scandinavian languages, and a serving of French, but also sprinkles of many other languages from its seafaring and otherwise trading history. And I love the grammar rules that allow one to be precise and concise in many things (but there we must definitely bow to German).
Water bearer makes much more sense, thanks! I did notice the images where a guy carries a jug, but as a kid, I always imagined the water man to be some kind of elemental, and I never consciously challenged that idea. Haha.
In Dutch we don’t use the Latin names for zodiac signs (and we call them “sterrenbeelden”, which means “star images” or maybe “star statues”). Aquarius is “waterman”, which I guess would translate to (surprise) “water man”.
Why? Not sure, but it might be because of Simon Stevin who insisted we use Dutch words for mathematical concepts, and thought up some words like “evenwijdig” (“same distancey”) for “parallel” and “wiskunde” (“certainty knowledge”) for mathematics.
I like that I can hear that omitted space there.
git was designed to be decentralized. Everyone can (technically, but it is not too hard to set up if you have some affinity with servers) fork/clone another git repository and serve it up. It has built-in ways to synchronize with any other server. In fact, that synchronizing is what most developers do when they use git.
Of course, that would make it harder to know which repository has the “official” version, but in a way, that is maybe also a benefit of decentralisation. Knowing what code is authentic can be done by signing the commits.
The hubs that we see, are usually a combination of git and a way to serve the code, along with documentation, roadmap, bug tracking, automatic testing and building and the resulting binaries in a visually pleasing way. That does not need to be a part of decentralizing the code, and it is not the only way to do it.
Some of that can also be done with git built-in tracking of files, and the building and testing can probably also done in other locations, as long as there are files describing how to do that bundled with the code (which practically all projects already do).
Sourcehut (https://sr.ht) is one hub that helps developers use simpler tools for those workflows, and I think that’s a good place to find some inspiration.
I don’t think their “No” was a disagreement, but a confirmation of your second line. https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/88502/how-to-agree-with-a-negative-statement-with-yes-or-with-no Sometimes, language can be a tricky tool to wield.