I have a Mac, not an XDG desktop. I would only expect and want X applications I run through Xquartz (all zero of them) to follow that.
None of that shit should live in .local. I have a "local" already, it's called ~/Library. There's a Caches folder in there. Also a Preferences folder.
At the very least why make local a dot-folder? Why add the extra keystroke? Local? Local to what?! Of course it's "local" it's my fucking home folder, everything in it is "local" to me. It's redundant. It just further supports that the convention is stupid.
Even when I'm on my Linux computers, where it is at least a half-assed convention, I still hate this crap. The XDG directories and hierarchy are bad and dumb. None of them should be "dot" anything. Hiding clutter under a dot is like hiding clutter in your house under a rug. It's not organization, you just have a big mess you don't have to look at but you have to step around all the time. NeXT solved this shit 30+ years ago and they cleaned it up 25 years ago. You put it in a box (~/Library) with a clean label of a proper noun (Preferences, Caches, Keychains, Extensions, etc) that identifies it, stow it somewhere out of the way but accessible, so you can find it when you need it but otherwise not have to look at it. 84 little dot folders could all be swept out of sight by moving them into the Library, one single folder in my home, but instead, they just sit under a big dot rug in the middle of it.
Apple does commit one sin here and that is hiding the user Library folder by default, but that is part of making computers work for mere mortals as dumb users will go and delete their Library folder to save space and break shit, but that uses a proper file system flag not this crappy convention from half a century ago that breaks sorting.
All that said, I do agree that at the very least Linux apps should be following $XDG_CONFIG and only if unset, pollute the home folder. It's a fucking if-then-else. No excuse. I shouldn't be seeing shit like ".arduinoIDE" or ".claude" Claude should be able to add this feature on its own anyways.
> I have a Mac, not an XDG desktop. I would only expect and want X applications I run through Xquartz (all zero of them) to follow that.
XDG has nothing to do with X11. XDG stands for "Cross-Desktop Group," and is designed specifically for any Unix or Unix-like operating system, which includes macOS.
XDG stands for X Desktop Group. It absolutely does not stand for Cross Desktop Group and has nothing to do with macOS or Windows, outside of aforementioned X apps on Quartz via XQuartz which as far as I know is completely dead.
the successor to xdg, freedesktop.org, however is acknowledging the need for cross platform openness. that's exactly why you indeed can configure where the three main "stores" of compliant applications, their config, their data and their caches.
you can point them to %APPDATA%..., ~/Library or the Linux defaults.
my point in this is: there are free and open conventions and we wouldn't need this "my HOME is cluttered" fuss, if technical teams would embrace them.
so why don't they respect XDG_ env vars for their config and data?
That is a backronym[1], it absolutely meant X Desktop Group and likely changed to "Cross Desktop Group" when they switched to Wayland. D-Bus, .desktop files, MPRIS are all listed as FDO specifications alongside the Desktop basedir spec and none of them are appropriate for macOS either.
FDO applies to Linux and "Unix-Like" Operating Systems. macOS is not "UNIX-like", Apple still bothers to get it certified under UNIX 2003 so it is technically not a Unix-like. Again, just because it has a /usr folder and a /var folder and can run a bash shell out of the box doesn't mean all the same mostly just OK standards from Linux should be copy-pasted over.
Oh, I've used some awk too. My favorite (and most ridiculous) application was using the qawk from The AWK Programming Language[0] book to make a flat-file relational database of CSV files. Ultimately I just moved to sqlite but I learned a lot about awk in the process!
Well, the word "machine" by itself is even more established, and it isn't compatible with describing diagrams (that routinely don't represent machines) as machines.
Fair pushback - I was loose with "inputs". Formally yes: if you fold input history into the state itself, every deterministic FSM stays deterministic, H pseudo-states included. The narrower point I was trying to make is that the diagram isn't a complete representation once H is involved. From the practical reading of statecharts - "look at the chart and predict next state given a transition" - H breaks that without showing what it added. The latent state exists but isn't drawn. So the formalism is sound; the visualization is incomplete.
methanol and ethanol do not form an azeotrope with each other, they only (both, each) bind to water. that's why separation of methanol and ethanol by holding key temperatures works at all.
furthermore, the azeotrope effect only becomes relevant at concentrations beyond 90% alcohol. so when you're producing pure methanol and ethanol, then distillation won't cut it beyond 90+% as water+(m)ethanol then *at these high concentrations* boil and evaporate together. that's the grain of truth in your statement.
last not least going blind from methanol is _very_ real.
Methanol will certainly make you go blind if you consume it at too high a ratio, it just isn’t a risk when distilling because you can’t feasibly make that happen on accident and it would be hard to even do it on purpose. I think that’s what parent likely meant.
Ethanol can be used as a temporary measure in methanol poisoning as it temporarily outcompetes methanol in the metabolic process. So it's only useful until proper medical help arrives when better alternatives such as fomepizole are administered. Even then there is no guarantee of success.
Methanol is still metabolized to dangerous formaldehyde and formic acid by the liver's alcohol dehydrogenase. The logic of giving ethanol or fomepizole is to slow down the rate of production methanol's dangerous metabolic byproducts so less damage is done, nevertheless those dangerous metabolites are still produced.
Ethanol's first-pass metabolite is acetaldehyde and it is still toxic but not to the same degree as those of methanol.
It is incorrect to say ethanol is an antidote for methanol poisoning. Using ethanol is a last-ditch stand to try and take some minor control of an otherwise out of control situation. There's nothing subtle about it—it's a blunderbuss approach that often doesn't work well because replacing one poison with a less toxic one is a pretty hit-and-miss process.
Antidotes counteract poisons, that's not what happens when you give ethanol in methanol poisonings.
> The logic of giving ethanol or fomepizole is to slow down the rate of production methanol's dangerous metabolic byproducts so less damage is done, nevertheless those dangerous metabolites are still produced.
Who cares if dangerous metabolites are "still produced" when the danger has been limited? It's like claiming that blood transfusions don't help with shock because the patient still lost the same amount of blood.
> Using ethanol is a last-ditch stand to try and take some minor control of an otherwise out of control situation.
This is some weird-ass over-elaborate synonym for antidote.
> There's nothing subtle about it—it's a blunderbuss approach that often doesn't work well because replacing one poison with a less toxic one is a pretty hit-and-miss process.
I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. This all reads like AI slop.
> Antidotes counteract poisons, that's not what happens when you give ethanol in methanol poisonings.
You literally give it to them to counteract the poison. You're using a idiosyncratic version of the word "counteract," which doesn't relate to the health or survival of the person poisoned, but has a lot to do with the absolute levels of "dangerous metabolites produced."
"This is some weird-ass over-elaborate synonym for antidote."
I did not say or infer that ethanol should not be used in the treatment of methanol poisoning.
Giving ethanol to counteract methanol poisoning is not a simple fix like giving naloxone for a herion OD (which works effectively in minutes), it's more complicated and often involves multiple procedures such as hemodialysis and strict monitoring of ethanol levels (assuming one knows what that level should be, ipso facto, how much methanol was consumed and whether it was coconsumed with ethanol—facts often not readily available in an emergency department).
The almost flippant assumption that ethanol is a fix all panacea for methanol poisoning by many who've posted here is just irresponsible. Fact is methanol OD is a major medical emergency and in no way should it be played down.
If I have to be the bringer of unwelcome truths then so be it. Shooting the messenger generally makes things worse.
> A 10% ethanol solution administered intravenously is a safe and effective antidote for severe methanol poisoning. Ethanol therapy is recommended when plasma methanol concentrations are higher than 20 mg per dl, when ingested doses are greater than 30 ml and when there is evidence of acidosis or visual abnormalities in cases of suspected methanol poisoning.
Under
> 7.4. Antidotes and Elimination Enhancement
> 7.4.2. Ethanol
A therapeutic blood ethanol level of about 22 mmol/L (100 mg/dL) is recommended.
...
>If ethanol was coingested with methanol and the blood ethanol level initially was >22 mmol/L (100 mg/dL), the bolus dose of ethanol can be skipped.
It's like you didn't even read your own source.
They are calling it recommended for certain conditions, and saying you can skip parts of treatment for co-ingestion!
Then in the conclusions section
> Despite its extensive use, methanol poisoning remains a critical public health concern globally, often resulting from accidental or intentional ingestion and outbreaks linked to contaminated beverages.
They've called out contaminated beverages, not outputs of distillation.
You've been had by misinformation and now you're peddling lies.
> Ethanol is the most commonly used antidote to block the metabolising of methanol. Ethanol works by competing with the metabolic breakdown of methanol, thereby preventing the accumulation of toxic byproducts.
is theoretical computer science (turing machines and automata theory, lambda calculus, complexity theory, computability, devidability, etc) pure maths? or applied maths indeed?
tree calculus is theoretical computer science for sure.
and that, computer science, in its beginnings at least, until the 1950s or so, was a field of mathematics, like algebra, or analysis or logic. all of which have pure maths parts and applied maths parts, don't they?
long story short, I don't think theoretical computer science is "applied maths", it to the contrary can be deep in pure maths land.
if only people knew about, read (and followed) xdg... aka freedesktop.org
reply