etaweb

Note that Python supports type annotations in its syntax, but the interpreter will just ignore them as they are meant to be used by external tools such as ruff: https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff

I've had a good experience developing small to medium sized Python programs/scripts using type annotations plus ruff connected to my editor through its LSP (Language Server Protocol). It helps a lot, and I don't like to write Python without it.

You can create types from literal values and use union types, which I feel makes it more pleasant than Go's type system for example.

It reminds me of The Three-Body Problem novel/series. At the beginning, the police is investigating on multiple suicides by scientists.

I worked with Elixir/Phoenix for over 3 years, and I recently started to learn Crystal, mostly to create CLI apps or other programs where I want to create a simple executable binary. I wanted a more expressive language than Go, and easier than Rust.

Out of curiosity, I took a quick look at some of the web frameworks available, they are interesting. Lucky's Components looks pretty good, but I still prefer Phoenix's Components because the syntax make it very close to raw HTML. Compilation is not incremental and is single threaded which means I have to wait at least 5 seconds every time I make a change (this was on a minimal project). It's not that bad, but compared to Elixir/Phoenix where it's almost instantaneous, it makes a difference.

Still, Crystal is an awesome language, and if for one reason Elixir was not a choice for a web project, I would definitely consider a Crystal framework.

> In particular, your project automatically gets a bug tracker – and you don’t get a choice about what bug tracker to use, or what it looks like. If you use Gitlab, you’re using the Gitlab bug tracker. The same goes for the pull request / merge request system.

With Forgejo (Codeberg) you can toggle features such as pull requests, issues, etc.

You can also configure any external issue tracker or wiki apparently, though I've never tried it, because those included with the forge are good enough for me.

A movie about this story came out this year, "My Penguin Friend". https://www.imdb.com/video/vi3738879513/

Actually, all the cases you mentioned does not necessitate any consent from European users as long as you don't send these data to any third party. The only thing is, if you plan to store logs over time, it should be anonymized after 25 months. It's not that bad.

A few years ago I also switched from VSCodium to a simpler code editor called Helix (helix-editor.com). I chose it over Neovim because I think it has better default parameters and I found it was easier to configure.

> These aren't physical goods, and (my issues with the categorization of piracy as theft aside) given that we're talking about legally listening to music you have access to through a service you pay for, I don't even know how to engage with the suggestion that this is theft.

It being legal doesn't do much about its unfairness.

> For the average person who can maybe comfortably afford $90 per year, a subscription service is a much more viable way to support the musicians they listen to than buying 4-9 albums

The option that you describe as the best for people who can't put more than 90$ a year on music (which is perfectly fine), is going through a subscription service, because even if a lesser amount of that money goes directly to artists, more of them get to see a bit of it.

I disagree with that, because you don't know for sure where your money is going, as all of this distribution system around streaming services is pretty opaque. As far as I know, the money from subscriptions on Spotify is not equally distributed among the artists that a user listens to. Bigger artists tend to get more per play than smaller ones.

The other option would be to spend that same amount on buying albums each year on a service like Bandcamp, which is known to distribute the money in a more direct and transparent way, and where artists actually have more control over what and how they want to sell.

It definitely means making a choice about what to buy, but it is still better than letting an obscure algorithm make that choice for you.

We should also consider that we can favor artists who are in need over those who are already earning large amounts. This is the opposite of what streaming services seems to be doing.

> your idea that poor people should have reduced access to the arts

This is not my idea and I didn't say that. I criticize those who waste their time chasing the "theft", who they blame for being the origin of the artists being poorly paid, when the subscription model being proposed as the best solution is actually far from it and could also be considered as theft when you put out the numbers of how much artists are asking for their work.

You say that it is better to pay 90$ for 1000$ worth of goods than to pay nothing. This is a false dilemma, there is a third choice that is paying only what you can afford. Paying only 9% of a physical good wouldn't make anyone less of a robber.

A lot of people here would rather blame those who steal better than they do, than question the industry that allows artists work to be sold off.

Furthermore, I would say that most people using Spotify and alike services do it only for convenience, but certainly not to "support the artists".

I would say that most people think of Android as the complete operating system experience that comes preinstalled on most Android phones, and that experience depends a lot on proprietary parts, especially Google Mobile Services that are apparently deeply integrated with the OS (could it be considered part of it at this point?). Plus, these proprietary parts are not fully nor easily replaceable as you almost certainly have to wipe the whole operating system to do so.

So, in my opinion, calling Android an Open Source OS is kind of misleading, but it's a matter of how you interpret what Android is. I would rather refer to Android as the final product (which relies on proprietary software), and to AOSP as the open source project which Android is built on.

Plus, I think that AOSP and Android are considered two different entities and I doubt that AOSP is under the trademark of Android.

Android™ is not Open Source, it is based on AOSP which is.

Intellectual property is not all about arts and extends beyond it.

> To throw out intellectual property is to throw out art itself.

Art is older than intellectual property.

"To throw out intellectual property" wouldn't stop anybody to continue making art, it would at most challenge the way we build an economy around it.

Same here on Firefox and Brave