Very annoying. I decided to move from manually creating my own config to using Astronvim and there were just so many distracting things in the default installation. The good thing is that you can disable what you don't want - which I did. The bad thing is that finding the right option or the actual plugin that is bringing the functionality you don't want takes some time.
Was the prebuilt configuration worth it in the end then? I recently started a from-scratch config and followed kickstart, which is pretty minimal and also not a plugin/distribution/self-updating thing, it’s just an example config file you can copy.
A good option is to start with kickstart.nvim. This allows you to build up from a very basic install, or keep the simple default install without a lot of plugins.
pricing model, downtime, model support, pricing model, trying to take over the experience rather than assist within my experience. This last one is big, because Cursor wants to "reimagine" how developers work. The problem is the AIs are so far from being competent, they need to be kept on the sidelines and sub'd in occasionally, not be the quarterback. Oh, did I mention pricing model?
> Tenured professors with status in a discipline can tune out the world and do "deep work" peers recognize as "important" before it is done (with accompanying ivory-tower/angels-on-pinhead risks).
> But a free agent, with no institutional safety net, no underwriting of exploratory expeditions by disciplinary consensus, and no research grants, cannot afford this luxury.
Administrative Processing Fees are a thing of GDPR. In most cases, however, this should not be a applicable for something as simple as an SQL statement from a button.
Why is it legal to charge if they don't manually, but not of they do up front work to automate it? That would create an incentive to not automate, which would be a chilling effect.
I recommend Postgres FM podcast, e.g. available as video on Postgres TV yt channel. Good content on its own, and many resources of this kind are linked in the episode notes. I believe one of the authors even helped Gitlab specifically with Postgres performance issues not that long ago.
I'll just throw in that I volunteer for an organisation that often deals with children, and in many ways safeguarding has been a disaster. I can totally see how good intentions following the 'Baby P'* case led to laws like this. But the reaction from many organisations has been to completely reorient themselves, and at all costs.
This is quite natural given that ultimately the law poses the greatest threat to the leaders of charities, schools etc. You really don't want a high profile failure on your watch.
When I was trained to lead shifts of volunteers, it stood out to me that the only instruction I received was in safeguarding...
My first thought was that something simply isn't quite right, since safeguarding is far newer than the organisation itself.
But actually I think this is just the way of things. If you have enormous punishments, then you will have commensurate reactions from management.
We've lost a large number of volunteers because we can no longer guarantee anonymity to young people. Initially we were reassured that we would only be expected to report things when identifying information was willingly given to us. This has since been revised to instructions that we are to actively seek such information.
The law itself was brought in following high profile instances of horrific abuse that went overlooked by social services. However, the scope of the law is surprisingly wide.
For instance, this would all apply to a 17-year-old who mentions that they were being bullied by peers.
I myself do feel conflicted - abuse is terrible, and it's worth tolerating other kinds of indirect harm to prevent. But it's still shocking to me that the second order consequences don't appear to get discussed at all in the public sphere. I do worry that this has been snuck in as a "Save The Puppies Act" without proper deliberation.
I'm unsure if there are other countries who have pretty much identical laws, or if it is just the UK?
I think the issue is that it's very hard to have open discussions about accepting that certain events are unavoidable and preferable to the second order impacts of trying to 'solve the problem'.
It's hard to talk about at least in part that 'the problem' in these situations tends to be a terrible event that can be avoided, but only avoided by doing lots of lots of 'ever so slightly terrible' things. And so it takes a toll on the soul to look at the balance and say that we should live with 'the problem'.
Yes, this captures my feeling too. It feels like an evil problem. It's not just misaligned incentives, though they do play a role.
I would love to find a name for this type of dynamic. I don't have words for the issue, and feel like I could communicate it more easily to others if I did.
Another example that just sprang to mind. A headteacher I know reported safeguarding concerns when he was made aware that a 7 year old was walking to primary school alone. I suppose partly to do with leaving a paper trail in case the worst should happen - but the system then does kick in all the same. It's the same law that was originally designed to deal with far more serious incidents. (You could argue that this case wouldn't even qualify in many peoples' minds, but it's also not obvious to me that the headteacher was being irrational, given the law.)
