10 follows the 'every other windows' pattern (xp good, vista bad, 7 good, 8 bad, 10 good, 11 bad)
windows 10 + open-shell + powertools + wsl + windows terminal is a really great combination right now
for me, windows 10 essentially functions as a login shell/window manager for my linux environment that comes with the best version of WINE i've ever used https://ha.zardo.us/img/ss21022023.jpg
using linux via wsl is incredibly straightforward, to the point that you don't see alot of WSL-specific instructions on e.g. installation/compiling readme's.
as someone who uses neovim because all my pure rice vim plugins run soooo much smoother on neovim, i'm going to go out on a limb and say that he is dramatically overestimating the representation of his demographic among neovim and maybe even vim users.
i think i read the phrase "emacs envy" more than once, i just feel like OP has a very specific audience for this post in mind
tl;dr: the russians are demonstrating the failure of a particular strategy/theory on how to deploy and use armor, not a failure of the concept of armor itself.
I'm not even sure that that's completely accurate. I think the Russians are demonstrating a failure to accurately assess the likely strength of their enemy.
In Georgia in 2008, skirmishes began in earnest on 8th August, and Russia were ready to roll into Tbilisi by the 14th.
I believe that Putin expected Ukraine to be very similar to Georgia - very fast advances to the capital, and ultimately capitulation from the Ukrainians to the Russians almost immediately.
The key to winning in Georgia was an overwhelming display of force. In Ukraine, I believe the strategy was the same - let Ukrainians see tank after tank after tank rolling through their villages, gently 'soften' the cities with artillery before rolling through the cities, and reach the capital in a few days. Furthermore, I think Putin genuinely wanted to avoid civilian and military casualties as much as possible, so a 'blitzkrieg' was preferable.
If you're moving that quickly, you don't need supply lines, you don't need logistics to the same extent, especially if your plan is not to occupy, just to withdraw after (for example) reinstating Yanukovic.
I think it's a legitimate strategy, but they gambled that they'd be able to achieve it and lost. That miscalculation has cost Russia a lot of time, morale, and equipment. I think now they're starting to adjust to the reality, which is that Ukraine were stronger than they were expecting in the first place, and on top of that, they're being supplied with weapons and real-time intelligence from the West. Assuming diplomatic efforts continue to fail, I see Russia now withdrawing to territory they are confident they control, and consolidating their forces, and beginning a war of attrition, which in the long run, Russia are likely to win.
However, there's a good chance that diplomacy will be successful. This war is incredibly costly for Russia, and if Putin finds a way to spin it that Russia have 'won' or 'achieved their objective' or whatever, then I think he will take that route - provided Russia maintains control of Sevastopol.
the "main battle tank" concept of armored warfare certainly appears outdated, but tactically speaking, the idea of using mobile/mechanized armor to support infantry is still super important
a mobile, armored vehicle capable of things like transporting infantry and serving as a mobile defensive position to fall back to, engaging enemies with direct or indirect heavy fire, serving as a command and control vehicle, etc
the line between "tanks" and IFV's seems to be getting blurrier, because the idea of a relatively heavily armored, big-gun, "breakthrough" tank really is a relic of cold war strategy. the past few decades have seen tank designs evolve to become more mobile and even capable of carrying infantry. at the same time, 'infantry fighting vehicles' are becoming more armored and carrying higher-caliber main weapons.
tactically, an armored vehicle appearing on a battlefield is still advantageous: you've immediately aggro'd the enemy forces and allowed your own infantry to breathe for a second while the enemy figures out how to deal with the armor. you could bait out hidden antitank elements. you could mount some powerful optics and a radio, and you can have a commander remain close to the elements they are directing, while relatively protected. you could use heavier armor as line-of-sight howitzers to clear urban environments.
what's changed is it's now a real bad idea to send in heavy armor as a 'spear tip' in an invasion, you want to support them with infantry, and at the point where you're forced to mix armor and infantry, your armor will begin to resemble more infantry-friendly designs. the example probably most familiar with folks is the israeli merkava tank - for all intents and purposes it's a 'main battle tank' but it can also carry 6 passengers in a rear fighting compartment, which i imagine allows for some really flexible fire-and-maneuvering.
in the context of the russia-ukraine thing, all of this flies out the window; i have no idea what the russians are doing. partly because of the fog of war but partly, from what i can gather, because their military was kinda dogshit going into this conflict. i swear to god it's like they've unlearned stuff since 1988.
i recently sat down over a weekend and did the same after realizing that i should hammer out something i can use for myself - it dawned on me the work i thought i might be saving with frameworks was offset by the work i'd wind up doing to them - having to go through and cut out all the stuff i wound up not using, changing defaults to things i like etc.
i think a part of that was also realizing what drew me to frameworks initially was less about styling and more about the grid or flexbox etc scaffold - the most daunting part for me to this day. creating my own set of base templates helped me learn quite a bit about grids though, and now when stuff breaks i can tackle it with more confidence in where to look for the issue and how to go about fixing it.
that being said, i'm not anti-framework or anything - i relied on them alot as i learned CSS, and even now i still treat them like something akin to styleguides or catalogs of what's new/trending in webdesign
drawing from my own experience, i once found myself trying to work on a client website. thanks to a series of events i was using termux from a cellphone. i grabbed my vimrc from my dotfiles git repo and that was that. took all of 30 seconds to turn someone's cellphone into an interface identical to the one i use everywhere else
unfortunately there isn't an easy answer here, but you could always check out individual static site projects and peruse their available themes - hugo's gallery is pretty decent
echoing the other comment: with the caveat that i've always had a basic familiarity with css/html, i wound up throwing everything out and just building my own theme up from scratch. the real headscratcher is figuring out the whole grid/flexbox div positioning stuff, but from there it's not super tough to look at website source code for ideas, and/or google around.
it kinda seems like you're shooting for a solution in which you'll find exactly what you're looking for without having to pay a designer or even put in some time on google. in my opinion, learning css was far easier than learning how to properly maintain a static site - so it kinda threw me for a loop. on top of that i'm not really sure what you mean by 'quality' and 'finesse', except that from all possible existing designs, i can safely exclude 'most of the ones of jamstackthemes.dev'
windows 10 + open-shell + powertools + wsl + windows terminal is a really great combination right now
for me, windows 10 essentially functions as a login shell/window manager for my linux environment that comes with the best version of WINE i've ever used https://ha.zardo.us/img/ss21022023.jpg
using linux via wsl is incredibly straightforward, to the point that you don't see alot of WSL-specific instructions on e.g. installation/compiling readme's.