Thanks for pointing it out. I've tried both as interactive shells for a few minutes. Murex seems to have a more minimalist approach that works well as a drop-in replacement.
However, I have trouble understanding some design decision, such as inventing redundant keywords. And I've spotted bugs in boths (e.g. ls --literal fails in nu, and the completion proposes it twice in Murex).
`ls` is not the same command in nu. There's a nu-specific `ls`.
My GNU `ls` has `--literal`, but to do that in nu, you have to do `^ls --literal`, to use the external command instead of the nu builtin.
You can see the nu `ls` options with `help ls`, or `ls --help`. `--literal` is completely useless for nu's `ls` anyway. `nu`'s ls gives a table, where the `name` column is the filenames. There's no need for any quoting, because it's already structured output.
> However, I have trouble understanding some design decision, such as inventing redundant keywords.
Murex author here: The design was originally based around explicitness. Though that's not to say that the design works everywhere. So I'm definitely interested to understand where you think improvements can be made. Please do leave some feedback in Github.
That is not how AML-CFT work. Banks calculate your level of risk. When in doubt, they will cut you off or block individual transactions, unless the benefits outweigh the risks.
Bikes have already taken market shares from cars in large European cities such as Amsterdam [0] or Paris [1]. They may be a superior technology for most urban commutes: faster, requiring less space on roads and for parking, and more enjoyable [2].
Buses are subsidized. In cities with subways, they are used primarily to accommodate people with limited mobility or to cover rare routes. Between cities, they remain the cheapest option. Therefore, I'm not sure that cost is an important factor.
Politicians in Europe generally do not appreciate mass, repetitive emailing. It might even have an adversarial effect.
If you want to be helpful, please consider more strategic alternatives such raising awareness among the general public, writing thoughtful arguments, or joining specialized non-profits or political parties.
> Politicians in Europe generally do not appreciate mass, repetitive emailing
Nobody likes this. A concise, thoughtful call or message carries a premium in the states, but only if you’re demonstrably a constituent.
The reason is simple: it shows conviction. If you’re willing to pick up the phone, you might be willing to stump for an opponent. If you’re unwilling to do that, or are raving at the politician such that you would never be won over by them, you’re messaging you’re a lost cause.
