The thing is that vi and emacs have existed since long before those other new editors came around.

What you want is possible to do by configuring your ~/.inputrc (see readline manual page for details), it’s just that the defaults are different because they are from a time when many keyboards didn’t even have arrow keys (and the ones that had them were in non-standard positions) so most of the shortcuts that became standard in those days are completely different than the ones common today. Given that the terminal is meant to emulate old style DEC VT100 terminals (that’s why it’s called terminal “emulator”) it made sense to use those default that people had grown used to.

Personally, I’ve grown used to Ctrl+a, Ctrl+k, Ctrl+w, Ctrl+e and Ctrl+y …I dont have to reach to wherever the Home key is in whatever keyboard I happen to be using at the moment (specially with modern 75%/60%-sized keyboards today). Or use a combination that also requires shift and having to hold so many keys together. In fact I went the opposite direction and customized my Powershell profile while I’m on windows to keep many of those old shortcuts in the Windows pwsh terminal as well.

Good marketing means achieving an arbitrary limit of what you consider “good” marketing. So it depends on where you set the bar.

The best marketing necessarily requires some level of unethical behavior, because being honest and saying the whole truth doesn’t sell. Everything has drawbacks and benefits… the better marketing minimizes (or even hides / fails to mention) the drawbacks and emphasizes the benefits, which is a form of deception.

I feel it’s a bit like the usability vs security dilemma… you can try to optimize to have both, but then you won’t have as a result neither the most secure system nor the smoothest user-friendly experience, but something in between (you might still consider that “secure” or “usable”, but that just depends on where you set your expectations).

If you want to maximize marketing then the result won’t be as ethical as it could be, and if you want to maximize ethics then the result won’t be as marketable as it could be.

I always saw I2P as a more modern and distributed onion-routing alternative to Tor.

The thing is that people are used to making use of Tor in different ways than the way they use I2P, but you can also have outproxies (ie. exit nodes/relays) in I2P the same way as in Tor… and you can also host a service inside the Tor network without relying on an exit node, like in I2P. It’s just that people only seem to want to host exit nodes for Tor and not so much for I2P, this led to internal communications in I2P being more common (which is a good thing), whereas in Tor it’s common to use it for anonymous access to the clearnet (which strains the network and causes chokepoints, specially with big downloads or torrent sharing). That’s just a matter of usage, not capability.

I didn’t downvote you, but it’s unclear what you meant by stating that.

Depending on how one interprets it, it can be seen as a justification for using “fascist” (since there isn’t a more accurate word) or simply a way to emphasize that the term is inaccurate and shouldn’t be used.

So I’m not surprised if you get up/down votes from both sides in either direction, specially in a polarizing discussion. Not because of what you said being wrong/right, but because of what they might read between lines.

In theory, it can. One possible reason with Btrfs might be that you are only mounting a subvolume even though there might be other files in the same filesystem (such as snapshots/copies of the subvolume for backup) but that are not being mounted.

Also some tools like gparted do not handle btrfs disk usage very well and will display it as if the whole partition is 100% full.

What’s your filesystem?

If you are using something like btrfs, for example, the usage reports can be misleading, and getting the exact size can be complicated… I’d recommend using more fs-specific tools, such as btdu.

I see, thanks for the overview.

If NixOS really does need a community in order for things to work at all, and it cannot be independent from it, then it looks like the moderation team asking for independence is a hard ask. It’ll require restructuring it.

However, with this context it looks to me that what they are asking is not really independence for the moderation team, but independence from Anduril… which are 2 completely different things. The message is misleading.

I get that big projects are not the same, but in my experience there’s always a hierarchy, not a collection of independent bodies (except for fan-made communities that are clearly “unofficial”, those are independent, sure). It’s not unheard of for maintainers at the top of the hierarchy to influence other parts of the organization, like moderation. In fact most open source projects are like that, led by a group of “benevolent dictators”.

For full independence, why not simply detach development from community?

You can even have multiple independent communities with multiple independent moderation teams all about the same software.

As a developer I’ve never needed to engage a particular community on a personal level in order to make a PR to a project… if the technical maintainers want to accept the change, they will, if they won’t then that’s fine, they probably have their reasons. It’s ok to communicate with communities to get feedback, but I’m not making contributions for the social approval, I’m making them when I believe they are useful, and most of the times I write them because I want to have that change myself. If it’s rejected and enough other people are interested in the change, it can be forked. That doesn’t mean I hate the maintainers or that I don’t want the original to exist or anything, it’s not personal.

But well, I understand that some communities wanna make software and they intertwine development and social relationships. However, if you do this then I don’t see how can independence be a thing. Either separate them and don’t intermix them or mix them and don’t expect them to be separate.

Just note that @RiverRabbits@lemmy.blahaj.zone wasn’t the one who opened the Thread, that’s why they said they didn’t ask the question (I get the feeling there might have been some confusion here :P ).

Still, very informative comment.

Compression and efficiency is often a trade-off. H266 is also much slower than AV1, under same conditions. Hopefully there will come more AV1 hw encoders to speed things up… but at least the AV1 decoders are already relatively common.

Also, the gap between h265 and AV1 is higher than between AV1 and h266. So I’d argue it’s the other way around. AV1 is reported to be capable of ~30-50% bitrate savings over h.265 at the cost of speed. H266 differences with AV1 are minor, it’s reported to get a similar range, but more balanced towards the 50% side and at the cost of even lower speed. I’d say once AV1 encoding hardware is more common and the higher presets for AV1 become viable it’d be a good balance for most cases.

The thing is that h26x has a consortium of corporations behind with connections and an interest to ensure they can cash in on their investment, so they get a lot of traction to get hw out.