You would never guess this while driving around in my small European country. The amount of Teslas is baffling and I still see very new ones every day.
I'm not autistic and social interactions are incredibly energy draining for me. Granted I'm quite an introverted person, but not having autism doesn't mean you get pumped up from being around people.
This is always the argument but obsidian does a lot on top of these md files. NASA's mission control software stores data in JSON, it's an open format so I guess the NASA software is easily replaceable huh? If obsidian was such a thin layer then why isn't there a good open source alternative? People build their workflows on top of the obsidian functionality, not just the md data.
> but obsidian does a lot on top of these md files
What do they do besides the frontmatter (which is fairly trivial to process or ignore in a hypothetical future where one wants to stop using obsidian)?
I understand what they mean. There's this great video [1] which explains it in better terms than I ever could. I've timestamped the link because it's quite long, but if you've got the time it's a fantastic video with a great narrative and presentation.
I'm a pretty young developer and git is the only VCS I'm familiar with, and even though it has its quirks I find it quite powerful and a perfectly adequate tool for the job. In what way is Mercurial better?
Here's a quick example: when I create a Mercurial repository Mercurial doesn't say anything, while Git yells at me that it's using "master" as its branch name but I can change it with a cryptic command. After a first commit for a file Mercurial once again doesn't say anything, while Git gives me three lines of information including the permissions for the file I just added. Editing and committing a file in Mercurial with "hg commit" yields (again) nothing, while typing "git commit" in Git let's me know that it knows there's a modification but it won't go through until I "stage my change for commit".
Now, imagine you're a new user. Mercurial just did what I asked, and it even guessed that "hg commit" should mean "commit everything that's been modified". Git, on the other hand, has yelled at me about default branch names (what's a branch?!), file permissions, and bickered about me not staging my commit (what's a stage?!!). They both did the same thing but, for a new user, Mercurial did it in a friendlier way.
Heh, I've never noticed git commit including new file permissions on commit; definitely confusing/useless. Don't think "it prints less information" in general is a particularly good argument for user-friendliness though; if anything, it's the exact opposite.
Trying out hg for the first time - "hg init; echo hello>world; hg commit" prints a "nothing changed" and I have no clue how to get it to commit my file! Whereas git says 'use "git add <file>..."', and, as that's already required for starting tracking a file in both hg and git, it's not entirely unreasonable that you'll need to do "add" upon modifications too.
So in hg you have to explicitly think about file tracking and get changes for free, whereas in git you have to explicitly think about changes and get tracking for free. Obviously I'm biased, but I think "I need to tell git what changes I want committed" is a nicer model than "I need to tell hg when it should realize a file has started existing"; the former is pretty uniformly annoying, whereas I imagine the latter quite often results in adding a file, forgetting to "hg add" it, and making a bunch of commits with changes in other files as the new file is intergrated, but never actually committing the new file itself, with zero warnings.
Git's staging/index, messy as it is (and with some utterly horrible naming), is extremely powerful, and I wouldn't accept any VCS without a sane simple equivalent. Extremely do not like that "hg commit -i", adding some parts manually, and deciding that I actually need to do something else before committing, loses all the interactive deciding I've done (maybe there's a way around that, but --help and "man hg" have zero useful info on interactive mode, not even what all the different (single-char..) actions are; granted, I don't really understand "git add -i" much either, and just use a GUI when necessary). In my git workflow I basically always have some changes that I won't want to commit in the next commit.
I think you are seeing it as a software developer as opposed to (say) a biologist on the first year of their PhD who just wants to keep their scripts safe. Mercurial's strong point (IMO) was to cater to the 90% of developers who work with two-to-three colleagues on a single branch - you could always make things more complex if needed (as evidenced by Firefox doing just fine), but the defaults were always more user-friendly than git's.
For a more time-appropriate critique, this post [1] from 2012 gives an overview of what working with Git felt like at the time when git was being popularized as an alternative to Subversion (including a frequent comment of "use Mercurial instead!"). It's also worth noting that git's error messages have become more helpful since - while the documentation for git-rebase used to be "Forward-port local commits to the updated upstream head", it now reads "Reapply commits on top of another base tip".
Software developers will be the vast majority of users though, at the very least for the CLI.
Git certainly isn't anywhere close to the prettiest thing for ease-of-learning (and indeed used to be even worse), but Mercurial didn't seem particularly good either. Really for the common uses the difference is just needing to do a "git add ." before every commit, vs a "hg add ." before some.
All of my git usage has been on projects with ≤2 devs (including me; technically excluding a few largely-one-off OSS contributions of course), but I still use a good amount of local temp branches / stashes / rebasing to organize things quite often (but also have some projects where all I've ever done is "git add .; git commit -m whatever").
Depending on the region, "reasonably insulated home" really is the factor that makes this not so viable for a lot of people. In my Mediterranean-adjacent climate country, most homes are just not well insulated at all, and having heat running 24/7 during winter is extremely costly and inefficient even if the heating is on a low setting.
These home will most likely have a split air con, which will be the most efficient way of heating them. Also there is so much other room for improvement like drafty windows and doors etc.
In many warmer climates, the mini split air conditioners sold are cooling capability only. This is much cheaper to purchase for a 12,000 up to 24,000 btu/h unit than one which is also capable of heating the interior.
Big fan of Andrew McCarthy's work, been following him on IG for a few years now. The stuff he's able to pull off as a backyard astrophotographer is very impressive.
Bingo. I've had this conversation with my girlfriend. She's not overweight by any means (160 cm ~55 kg) but I am quite underweight (182 cm, 65 kg, < 10% body fat) and the conclusion I've arrived at regarding our differences in body composition is because she routinely eats 1.3x to 1.5x the amount I eat. We both exercise and eat little junk food.
I'm convinced it has to do with upbringing. My family never ate a lot and the portions I was served as a kid weren't big. Nobody in my family is anything more than skinny. Her family however, they eat a lot (and healthy too, mind you). This is all influenced by other factors, her parents and grandparents grew up with not a lot to their names and with food scarcity, so when they reached a position in life where they could comfortably afford to eat they gained the habit of having big meals. My family was mostly more privileged in that regard so maybe they never felt the need to focus on food as much.
reply