You can try to remap KDE keybindings but it won't affect Gnome applications, games, etc.
Personally, I found the most reliable thing to be a keyboard-level swap of Ctrl and the Cmd key. That way, whenever you're asked for Ctrl, which is all the time, you can always safely hit Cmd with no need for extra configuration. You can then remap various things in KDE Shortcuts to be more Mac like, like Cmd+Q, Cmd+Tab, Cmd+`, etc. (The only thing lacking is the Ctrl v. Cmd separation in a terminal, so I manually remapped all the Ctrl sequences in my terminal emulator to Win sequences, which matches my hardware Ctrl key. So, like on a Mac, Cmd+C works to copy, Ctrl+C is the escape code.)
This works for a Mac keyboard. For a Windows keyboard, you'd have to shuffle Alt -> Ctrl, Win -> Alt, and Ctrl -> Win. There are settings for this in xkb. (KDE surfaces these in its Keyboard settings panel.)
Keyboard layouts/shortcuts are a huge pain point with Linux. xkb is geriatric, and acts as such. Compose keys are flaky and inconsistent across applications. Virtually all Linux software is going to default to some idiosyncratic take on Windows shortcuts, often without much by way of customisability. (And those Windows shortcuts weren't very good to begin with.)
That works until you get into a terminal and want to copy/paste/send signals without having to remember special keybinds that only apply when you're in the terminal.
X should have never copied the IBM/MS binds. What a tragic mistake
> That works until you get into a terminal and want to copy/paste/send signals without having to remember special keybinds that only apply when you're in the terminal.
I don't really understand what you mean by this. When a GUI app wants Ctrl, I hit Cmd. In a terminal emulator, I hit Ctrl for control sequences and Cmd for system shortcuts like copy and paste. This reflects how things work on a Mac. There's nothing special to remember.
> X should have never copied the IBM/MS binds. What a tragic mistake
What is the point of this article? What does it actually say, other than 'AI good, criticisms of AI bad'? What am I supposed to have learnt from reading this, other than that the author likes AI?
There is no point to the article. It's not even written by a human, and really calling it an article implies a level of intent that is not there. It's a random collection of words that were probabilistically likely to follow given an initial condition and a seed for variation.
TLDR is that a guy bought Mac Minis to replace Google's Cloud Transcribe with a local whisper.cpp model and that saved him thousands of dollars a month, and he is using Claude Code for DevOps, etc.
I think vim's greatest problem is discoverability. It's a big enough problem that after six or so months working full time in neovim I went back to a GUI editor. I just about barely remember the most common commands, but I do not remember (at all) anything I only need occasionally. I also know myself well enough to know I will never remember this sort of thing well. I have a terrible memory for procedural / administrative / ritualistic knowledge.
I'm on Sublime right now. I like it a lot less than vim, but it's far less cryptic. If I need to tile four documents and move text around, I can do so trivially by dragging, without needing a PhD in vim esoterica that I would immediately forget the next day.
I 100% agree, but I also think you can get very far with just taking a weekend to read the user manual (:h user-manual). It won't solve the remembering problem, but it will make looking up help when you need it much easier. For example, you would know that most window operations start with <C-w>, so when you need to tile windows you could start with looking up `:h ctrl_w`.
There is also a very popular plugin for neovim that shows a popup with possible keybinds and descriptions whenever you begin any keybind: https://github.com/folke/which-key.nvim
HN is great for technical discussions, but is below average for political or macroeconomic discussions. A HN comment thread on those topics is essentially indistinguishable from a NYT comments section, which I mean as an unfavourable comparison.
Turns out that being good at SQL does not make one good at the subtle social art / science of power and governance. If anything, the correlation is inverse. This shouldn't be surprising.
This reflects a very common pronunciation of syllable-final Ls in English, called a vocalised L, but I've never seen it reflected in spelling in such a way. Very cool!
I'm extremely curious - did you go for that spelling as an intentional stylistic variation, or was it a typo reflecting your usual pronunciation?
> A lot of these attacks on the UK regarding free speech are coming from the American Right, an obsession which I can't quite understand the motive for.
> This particular article is an opinion piece from last April by "the world's oldest surviving anarchist publication" (apparently). I'm not sure why it deserves front page HN status. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_(British_newspaper)
British Anarchism isn't the American Right?
Concern for free speech traditionally cuts across the left-right divide, as it should. Sadly, there's been a greater erosion of it on the left than the right in recent years, despite the absolute centrality of free speech rights to key progressive causes: abolitionism, civil rights, gay rights, etc. At the same time that the left got softer on free speech, the right had a series of 'are we being shadow-banned?' scandals, which increased the importance of free speech to the right.
Twenty years ago the position was roughly reversed with the Iraq war, the PATRIOT Act, 'free speech zones', etc. Arguably, that same reversal might be happening now with Gaza, ICE etc.
In my ideal world, we all love free speech, but in the real world, it seems to zig zag across the spectrum to the people not currently in power. I suppose an understandable reflection of its value in standing up to power.
Hannah Arendt convincingly made the case that any government power used against immigrants will eventually be turned against citizens. History keeps proving her right.
> Being these things are at their core probability machines, ... How? Why?
Is Siri a probability machine? I didn't think it was an LLM at all right now? I thought it was some horrendous tree of switch statements, hence the difficulty of improving it.
Apple search is comically bad, though. Type in some common feature or app, and it will yield the most obscure header file inside the build deps directory of some Xcode project you forgot existed.
Don't be like this. Don't spit bile at people because they have different needs and preferences to you.
As I understand it, the TS compiler can translate newer JS features/syntax into backwards-compatible polyfills for you, automatically. I don't really use TS myself, but I'm not going to pretend like that isn't a useful feature.
I have used JS before TS entered the scene, and being able to transpile features/syntax like that is not a TS innovation, nor only available in TS. That's why flagging that as something "you get for free, since you added a compiler anyways" feels dishonest. Ultimately it's true, but if that's what you're out after, then adding TS to your project is going way above and beyond just "transpiling new syntax to old syntax".
> is not a TS innovation, nor only available in TS
> since I avoid TS, I cannot use ES6 and ES7, and my vanilla JavaScript doesn't run in all browsers
Where was that claim made? I don't see it in any Typescript docs, or in the book.
You seem to be saying that the TS docs say that these features are unique. They obviously aren't, the documentation is clearly not saying they are, and no reasonable person would say they were.
Transpiling to another platform is a multiplying benefit when combined with other benefits though.
For example: Clojure and Kotlin both target the JVM. The language design of each brings certain benefits. These benefits are clearly more useful if they have a wide deployment base in the form of the JVM.
> Where was that claim made? I don't see it in any Typescript docs, or in the book.
In the article, you know, linked in this submission, which my original comment quoted verbatim. Again:
> > Some of the benefits of TypeScript:
> > Access to ES6 and ES7 features
I'm saying that these are not "benefits of TypeScript" but benefits of doing transpiling in general with a tool that can "downcast" features like that, which is in no way exclusive to TypeScript nor even began with TypeScript, but AFAIK with Browserify.
When I talk about "benefits of language X" I try to keep it to things that are actually about the language, not particular implementation details also broadly available and used by others, because I feel like it'd be misleading.
Ok. I think you're misunderstanding that word as it was used. It's not the way I, and other responders, think the author intended it. They did not say 'exclusive benefit'.
A benefit of living in a house is that you don't get wet when it rains. If you didn't live in a house, you might get wet when it rained. But there are other things you could also do to not get wet, such as living in a tent.
It would not be reasonable to say "that's not a benefit of living in a house, because if I lived in a tent, or wore a rain-coat, I would not get wet".
The benefit of "staying dry" belongs to both "a house" and the superclass of "a sheltering structure".
If you defined benefits only on single dimensions, and only allowed them to belonging to level of abstraction at which they are exclusive, then you could argue that no language or technology has any benefit whatesover.
I think most people would think of "benefits of X" as an aggregation of individual specific benefits which may also belong to other aggregations.
> I have used JS before TS entered the scene, and being able to transpile features/syntax like that is not a TS innovation, nor only available in TS.
I used JS back in the 1990s. Transpiling to JS is a relatively new phenomenon.
No one said transpiling is a TS innovation, nor that it is unique to TS.
> That's why flagging that as something "you get for free, since you added a compiler anyways" feels dishonest. Ultimately it's true, but if that's what you're out after, then adding TS to your project is going way above and beyond just "transpiling new syntax to old syntax".
That's silly. Transpiling is something TS can do, so it's not dishonest to advertise it as something TS can do. If you think TS is too hefty, don't use it. But don't be toxic towards those that do.
You're moving the goalposts to try and defend a bad take. That's how you get brownie points on the Internet for extreme takes, but also how you prevent yourself from learning and growing in the long run. Learn to take an L. You'll be better for it.
I can personally confirm I've downloaded an entire iCloud library at once, to a brand new Mac, using the 'Download Originals to this Mac' option. As have many others here, I would think.
That's literally what that option is for.
If it's not working for you, you might be dealing with a bug, or perhaps you haven't given it enough time to sync. If you go to Photos > Library and scroll down, it should show you the sync status.
Thanks, that was a relief because I realised I didn't see the sync status at the bottom. It appears that Monterey hides the status message at the bottom by default, and I had to pull the page down twice to see it.
Long story short, iCloud wasn't syncing photos "due to performance" and this message was hidden.
No worries! I don't understand why Apple is so averse to surfacing the status of things, especially highly sensitive and finicky things like online sync. It would dramatically improve the feel of the software if it didn't seem like it just inexplicably wasn't working half the time.
Personally, I found the most reliable thing to be a keyboard-level swap of Ctrl and the Cmd key. That way, whenever you're asked for Ctrl, which is all the time, you can always safely hit Cmd with no need for extra configuration. You can then remap various things in KDE Shortcuts to be more Mac like, like Cmd+Q, Cmd+Tab, Cmd+`, etc. (The only thing lacking is the Ctrl v. Cmd separation in a terminal, so I manually remapped all the Ctrl sequences in my terminal emulator to Win sequences, which matches my hardware Ctrl key. So, like on a Mac, Cmd+C works to copy, Ctrl+C is the escape code.)
This works for a Mac keyboard. For a Windows keyboard, you'd have to shuffle Alt -> Ctrl, Win -> Alt, and Ctrl -> Win. There are settings for this in xkb. (KDE surfaces these in its Keyboard settings panel.)
Keyboard layouts/shortcuts are a huge pain point with Linux. xkb is geriatric, and acts as such. Compose keys are flaky and inconsistent across applications. Virtually all Linux software is going to default to some idiosyncratic take on Windows shortcuts, often without much by way of customisability. (And those Windows shortcuts weren't very good to begin with.)
reply