Hey, just so you know, newer lockfiles are meant to fully replace old ones, you shouldn't bother with solving merge conflicts on these files, just accept all the new changes always.
What you SHOULD solve are conflicts in the packages/project file. Once solved, just create a new lockfile and replace the old one.
This applies to lockfiles on any project python or non-python.
Thank you for the tip. I don't run into them these days. The projects have matured and my area of work has shrinked, so changes to the dependencies are rare and my involvement in them is even rarer. But I will keep this mind for future.
This first time I used a mac where zsh was the default, I was confused for quite a bit of time when it would not run something I was used to doing. I kept looking up errors on the internet until I came across someone's post with a reply asking if they were using Terminal on a new OS X. Sure enough, this was a new mac as well. Now I know one of the first steps for me with a new Mac is change default shell. I'm way too old and set in my ways to care to learn a new shell. Choosing a shell, IDE, font, etc are games for youth.
I learned to consistently use shebangs at the top of scripts while working with the first zsh user I knew. Or might have been fish. No i think he started in zsh and moved to fish. Every time I forgot, his environment was busted. And he sat a cubicle and a half away from me, so I got fast feedback.
Just last week I found myself trying to explain shebang to someone that knows nothing of coding, command line interfaces, or what shells are. At one point, I was wondering where it was I should have stopped talking, but it was definitely well before I finished.
I used "brew install bash && brew info bash" to get the path, then ran that shell (zsh doesn't work), then inside that new bash, ran the screensaver app.
I found the 4k fullscreen perf in iTerm2 to be not-great, so I did it again in the kitty (GPU powered) terminal macos app, and it was good.
Space War was great! Briefly in high school a few of my friends and I all had Palm OS devices.
I taught myself to crack palm apps and games, and with Space War I modified the strength of my ship. The IR multiplayer had no validation of parameters so I pranked my friends in an IR multiplayer match by one-shotting them all and zooming across the whole map in one turn! Great times.
I think I mentioned it in an earlier blog post, Space War was actually the big inspiration to make this game hex-tile based. Happy to see I'm not the only one that remembers that game! (found it: https://quarters.captaintouch.com/blog/posts/2025-05-06-2025...)
That personal risk includes having yourself or loved ones thrown in prison without any contact to the outside world for however long the dictatorship sees fit.
It’s a very sad history of oppression and corruption that has forced many Venezuelans to pull up their roots and risk their lives leaving their own country. It would be a dream come true to see this dictatorship overthrown and replaced by a democratic system of government that serves the people.
Not to diminish her valor and heroism. Mad respect. But how is that actually about peace?
A dictatorship can be peaceful, and a democracy can be warlike. Venezuela hasn't been involved in any war recently as far as I know. Of course people who fight for democracy deserve being praised and supported, but to me it looks odd to do so with a peace prize.
The prize is supposed to be awarded to people who have "done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses". Is this the case here?
There is something called "democratic peace theory" which argues that democracies are less likely to attack other democracies, compared to other forms.
So I guess you could also claim that democracy helps maintain peace from that point of view, and a person who successfully proved that a "democratic election" really wasn't democratic at all feels like the right thing to award, as it'll further international peace.
edit: the submission article also talks briefly about how peace and democracy is linked (in their eyes):
> Democracy is a precondition for lasting peace. However, we live in a world where democracy is in retreat, where more and more authoritarian regimes are challenging norms and resorting to violence. The Venezuelan regime’s rigid hold on power and its repression of the population are not unique in the world. We see the same trends globally: rule of law abused by those in control, free media silenced, critics imprisoned, and societies pushed towards authoritarian rule and militarisation. In 2024, more elections were held than ever before, but fewer and fewer are free and fair.
Op's comment was about how this is not a given. Though tbf I can't recall any "peaceful" dictatorships, while I can recall a few war-happy democracies.
In my own country, Spain, the Francoist dictatorship (1939–1975) never attacked other countries or participated in any foreign wars (beyond sending a division of volunteers to WWII). Its domestic policy was highly repressive with common execution of political dissidents, etc., but in the sense of "no war" it was peaceful. The same goes for Salazar's Portugal, Hoxha’s Albania or Tito's Yugoslavia.
>Venezuela hasn't been involved in any war recently, as far as I know.
While the point you're trying to make may or may not be valid, Venezuela is not a good example. Go read up on the Venezuela-Guyana crisis. The Maduro regime has been pushing the region closer to war in recent years. Renewing its claims to Guyanan territory, and preparing its military for war. For now, all out invasion has been prevented partially by significant support for Guyana and pressure against Venezuela from neighbouring countries and the west, and distraction from its own internal problems.
A dictatorship cannot be peaceful. Peace is not merely “the absence of international war.” Peace is rooted in individual rights and freedoms.
If you walk around all day on metaphorical eggshells, surrounded by armed people who will beat you, torture you, disappear you, kill you and your family if you say the wrong thing, that is not a peaceful existence!
It sounds like repression —which if extreme enough approaches (civil) war. I’ll give you that but then we’d include Cuba, North Korea and a few other countries as well.
Sure. Now name people who are more deserving of the Nobel peace prize as this woman and explain their accomplishments and why it should make them a better pick. I'll wait.
I don't really understand what you're arguing for or against. That this woman doesn't deserve the prize because there are places worse than Venezuela? What does that have to do with the Nobel peace prize? This isn't a "pick the worst place on earth" contest.
I honestly don't understand any of the complaints in these comments. Is it because she's a woman? Or what? I've not seen anybody make any substantial arguments as to why she shouldn't be eligible.
Every country should be rooting for our situation to be solved. We have way too many people abroad enduring bad situations that would be better back at home with a decent government and democracy restored.
There are people that have WALKED all over the continent to flee, all the way to the US and Canada or Argentina, Chile, etc.
I mean sure. Winning a war is also sometimes seemingly necessary to achieve peace. And violence is sometimes seemingly necessary to replace a dictatorship with democracy. In this case, it looks like they're awarding her the prize for her efforts to peacefully oppose dictatorship.
> The prize is supposed to be awarded to people who have "done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses".
That's the one-liner from Nobel's will. It obviously leaves a lot of room for interpretation, and historically has often been awarded for civil rights advocacy.
I suppose Venezuela has hope because it is a weak country with nominal US pressure agaisnt the current regime. Russia is self sufficient and has WMD (nuclear)
On top of that, if I am not mistaken, Russia doesn't know what Democracy is. (Yeltsin and Medvedev up for discussion) As a result, for starters, Maduro can't make radical changes in the army.
come on folks, no need to make everything about the US. The situation and evolution of Venezuela is vastly different. There are a lot of parallels, like with any other authoritarian government, and probably lessons the US opposition can learn, but don't equate the two as it overshadows the struggles Venezuelans have endured for 25+ years. Let them have their moment
Ok, I guess we'll see in 20 years (you did read the "20 years" part I hope?) if my assessment is correct. It was maybe a bit tongue-in-cheek, but I don't have any doubts that Trump would like to be an "actual dictator" and is actively testing how far he can expand the limits of his power. Democracy in the US is more established than in other countries that have had authoritarian takeovers in recent years (Hungary, Turkey, Russia etc.), but we'll see if it's resilient enough.
It was more than tongue in cheek, it is a mix of anxiety and overreaction. None of this is happening except for the far left's mind. I see this constantly on reddit, it's a shame it gets posted here. You are trying to be over dramatic to get your point across and maybe try to get someone to see your viewpoint? It does the exact opposite.
huh, overreaction? As an outsider looking in, the US is looking more autocratic and totalitarian every week. I have 0 doubts Trump would like to become a "strong man" a la Putin, if he can.
I'm not saying that she isn't a good politician or that what she is doing is not a step in the right direction. I personally like her. All I'm saying is that she hasn't accomplished anything meaningful to merit the Nobel prize.
That's like giving the Nobel in physics to someone that has worked all their life publishing papers but they all have been refuted and proven wrong.
I don't think "prize" for the merit of being relentless in their fight for publishing physics papers is merited, maybe a different honor, but Peace Nobels should be given to - and i quote -:
"to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."
> All I'm saying is that she hasn't accomplished anything meaningful to merit the Nobel prize
I know it's frowned upon, but did you actually read the submission article? They're highlighting exactly why they've chosen her, including what meaningful work she has already done:
> The efforts of the collective opposition, both before and during the election, were innovative and brave, peaceful and democratic. The opposition received international support when its leaders publicised the vote counts that had been collected from the country’s election districts, showing that the opposition had won by a clear margin. But the regime refused to accept the election result, and clung to power.
Maybe you have some better suggestions on who this award should have gone to? Of all the candidates, I guess in the end she was seen as having done a lot, but in your mind she've done nothing, which means you're thinking about some other person who did more?
> Maybe you have some better suggestions on who this award should have gone to? Of all the candidates, I guess in the end she was seen as having done a lot, but in your mind she've done nothing, which means you're thinking about some other person who did more?
I think if there are no suitable candidates the award should be skipped. Like it has been skipped many years for the same reasons. This would send a more powerful message about how fucked up the state of the world is rather than giving it to someone just for the sake of it.
> and one part to the person who has done the most or best to advance fellowship among nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and the establishment and promotion of peace congresses
Go to her Wikipedia article, do a quick skim/read and then tell me how she doesn't fit with those conditions already?
Why skip the prize when there are individuals that fit the conditions for the prize? Working for democracy and peace in a peaceful and democratic manner shouldn't be rewarded?
They are not my standards. They are the Nobel Peace committee's standards. And I do agree Nobel Peace prizes are purely performative, but this one alongside Barack Obama has been one of the most performative ones I can remember.
I think they're older than that, Nobel apparently left a will that included three conditions for what we today call the Nobel Peace Prize:
> and one part to the person who has done the most or best to advance fellowship among nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and the establishment and promotion of peace congresses.
I have no idea. I wasn’t involved in their decision process. But it seems easy for some people to forget that the Nobel is awarded by a completely private foundation whose sole purpose is to pursue one man’s vision for a better world. Pretty sure neither of our opinions matter on this, but certainly not your disagreement with their execution of their own responsibilities.
Of course my opinions matter, because I hold it. I don’t particularly care about your
view on your opinion mattering, maybe you can have a heart to heart with someone about that.
The Nobel committee is supposed to follow certain guidelines that were set up by Alfred Nobel, and ideally their decisions should make sense because it’s a prestigious prize. The committee consists of regular people who absolutely can be criticized for their stupid decisions, whether their stupid decisions match Nobel’s vision, how their stupid decisions affect the wider world because of the prestige of the prize, or whatever else I or anyone else feel like.
> They are not my standards. They are the Nobel Peace committee's standards.
So you're saying that the Nobel Peace committee has not been following their standards? I find this pretty hard to prove... it's like if you were telling me that even if I say that my favourite color is green, it probably isn't because green is not that special a colour.
I think you are mixing two separate things: rule of law vs privacy.
Sure, we didn’t have encrypted communication a couple decades ago, but we did have an expectation of privacy: letters, phone calls, even in-person conversations.
Encryption is just the modern way of preserving that same right in a digital context.
