What would you have us do beyond voting against it?

Spam is now AI powered. Let that sink in for a bit.

I feel your pain. Parenting is exhausting, especially the first two years or so. Hang in there, it gets a lot better. Lowering standards also helps (Does the house really need to be that clean? Does the toddler need a bath every day?)

Our doctor told us not to give the baby/toddler a bath every day. Didn’t need to tell me twice.

(Every second day is fine, and better for their skin.)

We’d bath twice a week or with a blowout. Our kids are still alive

The strange thing is the infant years seem tiring in a different and more tolerable way than when they are interactive and running all over the place.

The babies being potatoes phase if visiting my life again would benefit from transferable skills that you simply don't have as the first time parent.

> Here, purely-async makes more sense than purely-sync:

> From a user experience perspective, the user has no need to wait around until the link is severed. They expressed the intent to sever the link, and were told this would be accomplished. Generally, that's sufficient.

That's incorrect I'm afraid. The reason the flow is synchronous for linking is so that the user can consume the service as soon as they link it. Async means they would have to wait, no user wants to wait.

Similarly, cancellation is asynchronous so that the service doesn't stop immediately. This benegits both the service and the bsnk or credit card company since users often do change their minds and resume the service during the "cool-off" period.

tl;dr, the current logic is correct, it just does not work for your use-case, which is understandably frustrating.

From the linked article:

> Linking the accounts between the bank and the streaming provider is a synchronous process, for both technical and user experience reasons. For example, it makes sense to get the user access as quickly as possible! "Click here and you're done" feels good, "click here and we'll send you an email in a few minutes" does not.

It's one thing to be electromagnetically inert, but if it is matter, it has mass, and if it has mass then it must be possible to collide with it. That we can't suggests it does not exist.

Yes, and dark matter will interact with visible matter gravitationally. When we say "doesn't collide with normal matter", it is not exact. It just means "the interaction length is very very long". Same for neutrinos. Their interaction length is huge as well: 1 TeV Neutrinos have an interaction length of 2.5 million kilometers.

I feel compelled to point out that (a)ether was the simplest answer until we confirmed that space is a vacuum and that light can travel in the absence of a medium.

Abandoning aether was NOT a "simple" answer. One you abandon aether, all manner of weirdness suddenly pops in.

Light being the same speed irrespective of observer is weird. Velocity dilating length and time is weird. Not having a preferential observation point is weird. Not needing a medium for transmission is weird. Not being able to agree on simultaneity is weird. etc.

Aether wasn't just something that a bunch of dullards clung to. You have to abandon some very long held common-sense understanding when you give it up.

That's my point exactly.

aether was not the simplest explanation since it was disproved by Michelson-Morley experiment. Nothing as of now yet has disproved Dark matter as thoroughly.

The two were dealt with very differently.

Aether: observations show lack of aether so we update the theory that makes aether unnecessary.

Dark matter: observations show lack of observable matter so we keep hunting for decades locating it. The aether analogue would have been to continue to look for dark aether. Dark matter is more like god of gaps. We can 'darkify' any theory that does not fit empirical evidence.

It's hard to tell now which leans more towards the more correct theory.

When a firewall rule blocks a port, is that security or obscurity?

Zed currently does not have a revenue stream. Ot's only a matter of time before the same shenanigans ensue.

Like how GNU Emacs is completely saturated with AI now?

(That's sarcasm, in case anyone wants to pretend I'm being serious.)

Emacs is not VC-backed.

...yet.

..kidding. Obviously.

They're a commercial entity that sells AI plans and enterprise features.

Honestly not sure how viable that is long term with the way the pricing kinda needs to go. I think the recent copilot price increase is just the tip of the iceberg.

The editor wars never ended, and VSCode has been user hostile since inception. It came with unavoidable telemetry right out the gate.

Yeah, this is part of the reason why vscodium exists.

Should be the top comment for succintly summarizing the situation.