This is quite common already, where they’ll offer a higher performance tier, but that power only comes from the engine control unit, no physical differences.
It makes even more sense in EVs where you don’t have to be concerned with the performance of supporting components to the engine.
The difference here, is that it’s a subscription, not a one time upgrade, and as a result, not an upgrade you can sell on.
> The difference here, is that it’s a subscription, not a one time upgrade, and as a result, not an upgrade you can sell on.
From the article, if you buy "lifetime" subscription, it persists.
> Auto Express, who first reported the story, said a lifetime subscription would be for the car rather than the individual - meaning the upgrade would remain on the car if it was sold on.
I don’t know what it is about how my brain works, but I have absolutely no memory for keybinds (and envy those that do), so I love that it just lays them out in the UI.
Only customisation I make is to turn off the borders.
Would love if built a similar, visually guided, experience for nvim.
> Would love if built a similar, visually guided, experience for nvim.
Definitely would recommend checking out Helix. My brain is similar in that keybindings often don't stick - Helix has a grammar leading to a bit more of a visual interface (you select things first, and then edit, so you can see how things go as you carry out multi-cursor edits etc), but also, it'll show pop-up menus for shortcuts.
In normal mode for instance, "g" is "goto", pressing g also displays a little window that shows the different options and their keys. It's easy to ignore when you know what your doing, and super helpful when you can't remember something!
Should say that it's really similar to the tmux/zellij distinction, in that, helix works nicely out the box, but is a lot more opinionated, there's LSP support for pretty much all languages you'll use, but no plugin eco-system, so if you have a really customised, or AI based workflow for instance, your kinda stuck.
At least LazyVim[1] that I use does have visual help for key shortcuts - I can either press the first key (often prefix aka space) and get a popup of continuation keys, or use <space>sk to search keys.
Interesting. Coming from Spring to Ktor, being able to easily inspect the internal workings has been one of my favourite bits!
It’s ‘advanced’ kotlin in there for sure, and takes some learning of the internal plumbing, but having everything not hidden behind annotations has been great.
Just a CMD+click on whatever Ktor DSL/plugin API your using and you can immediately start to follow along / debug what it’s actually doing.
Oh absolutely. I admittedly haven't used Spring beyond trying it out for a couple hours and deciding never again, but I can easily imagine Ktor being an improvement over Spring. When I wrote my comment, I was more thinking about it in comparison to Netty and Java-Websockets (relevant: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43800784), rather than as a web framework, though I have used it as such.
Netty is also a struggle to inspect so perhaps I just struggle with deep abstraction in general? I find code to be far better documentation than actual documentation, particularly when so much of it is along these lines:
/**
* Gets the next string.
*
* @return Returns the next string, or null.
*/
public abstract @Nullable String getNextString();
This documentation is entirely unnecessary because everything it says is present within the method signature. But say you have an abstract method that users override to handle incoming data, often documentation will not contain things like: whether the ByteBuffer is a slice or the whole buffer at a particular offset; or whether the buffer is a copy or a view; etc. So I end up doing a lot of defensive copying which is possibly unnecessary, but because it's very difficult to figure out where that buffer is coming from without first trudging through a seemingly endless forest of abstractions first.
I’m personally not convinced by the theory of ortho.
It seems to stem from the idea that stagger is a hangover from the typewriter, in which it was required to make room for the mechanics, and that if we didn’t need to make them like that, we wouldn’t have.
Hence the keys should be lined up so your fingers just move up and down.
However I think this has 2 problems.
1) Most ortho keyboards have 5 columns for 4 fingers.
2) In stagger I use different fingers to strike the same letter dependent on what the preceding letter was, so that I almost never use the same finger twice in a row. You can’t do this in ortho if the 2 letters are in the same column, leading to more repeated strikes from the same finger.
Which I would expect is both slower and more straining.
But maybe my technique is weird, or haven’t given the ortho enough time.
(if you like ortho, good for you, not trying to spoil your fun, just musing)
Vertical stagger is where it's at. Shifting key height per column put keeping columns straight.
The comfortable level of stagger is individual. I just can't with ortho but I guess it's a good fit for some folks' hands. For most of us, middle finger rests comfortably in a higher spot than pinky does. Just look at your hand. You won't really know until you try yourself.
What theory of ortho? It's merely a rejection of stagger. Stagger represents our unwillingness to try new things even if the old thing makes no sense whatsoever.
OK, attitude aside now: for me it's partly about the ability to find keys by feel. With stagger you can learn touch typing one row above the home row and one row below the home row, no problem. But when you start trying to learn touch typing for the number row the difficulty jumps up significantly, because the nonsensical stagger makes it difficult to feel your way up the column.
So the benefits of ortho, according to me:
- It's easier to touch type once you eliminate the stagger, especially when deviating more than one row.
- Being better able to feel your way around helps with gaming, as does removing the stagger from WASD.
- Being straightened out allows you to map a numpad over the keys, to be invoked with a function key. I tried this with stagger and it was awful.
- I just dig the way it looks. It's like a lazy cartoon drawing of a keyboard.
Is it similar to NixOS? Recent convert, would be interested to read a comparison to fuchsia from someone in the know of both.
If it’s anywhere close Google might be sat on a huge opportunity to tread the same ground while solving the ergonomic issues that NixOS has. (I’ve never been more happy with a distro, but I’ll admit it took me months to crack)
NixOs is built on Linux kernel, Fushia is built on a new (micro-ish) kernel called zircon, they are not interchangable.
They are working on some components/layer to run things from Linux, but you would not expect all things built to work directly or as well as thing designed from the get-go for Fushia in mind.
Thanks - I figure its step away in terms of target platform.
I meant a little more in the way that software is packaged and run. My understanding is that theres a similar mechanism for storing and linking shared libraries that means multiple versions can go exist and be independently linked depending on the requirements of the calling package.
There’s no doubt better docs will help improve the state of Android Apps.
But this is about stemming the flow of shovelware into the store, (todolist tutorial no 800000, but I changed the name) where the problem isn’t that devs lack the tools, it’s that they simply have no serious intention of maintaining their product.
If you can’t find or don’t have enough belief in your own app to find 20 people to download it for free, is it fair to promote it in a way that my gran might come to rely on it.
It’s not nice to be exclusionary, but end users having to pick through that stuff just isn’t great for the platform. There might be a better place for hobby code.
If you don't meet the requirements your app becomes unavailable to users.
> If you can’t find or don’t have enough belief in your own app to find 20 people to download it for free
I can guarantee you, many large companies, some whom I have worked for, and some apps you have likely used, do not have anywhere near 20 human QA / testers vetting their releases.
And if you look at the '20 tester' requirement closely, following it does not guarantee any outcome whatsoever.
> is it fair to promote it in a way that my gran might come to rely on it.
What your gran does is none of my business. If I have an idea which a few people may find useful, what your gran may or may not do with it should not impede my ability to release it.
Google already has strict guidelines about malicious apps, etc, which everyone must follow.
For activists working on causes where powerful people would like to unmask them. You can use mixers to end up with crypto for VPNs and other privacy services that aren't connected to your identity. Obviously you have to take 20 other steps as well. But this is in my opinion a very legitimate use case for this technology.
Meanwhile we know that these mixers are being used enmasse to sell exploitative content, fund terrorist organisations, evade tax, run scams, hacks, the list goes on, and on, and on, and on.
The problem is that the existing financial system also allows all these things. I have personally known many people who have lost money from a scam that their bank allowed them to transfer ridiculous amounts of money to. I also know people who have had their bank accounts arbitrarily frozen without prior notice.
If I have the risk of running into both these problems with the existing financial system, why not use Bitcoin? The problem is if I'm using Bitcoin, and want dollars to buy something from a vendor who doesn't accept it, I have to use a potentially hackable exchange that will then have my on-chain and personal information.
If I want a separation from the rest of my on-chain funds from those I send to an exchange, it's only logical to use a mixer. Even if I were Bitcoin only, I'd still want this level of privacy (unless all my transactions were digital and my on-chain identity was pseudonymous to all).
It makes even more sense in EVs where you don’t have to be concerned with the performance of supporting components to the engine.
The difference here, is that it’s a subscription, not a one time upgrade, and as a result, not an upgrade you can sell on.