gonewest
Not just terminals — I have done videoconferencing via that exit node, and I’ve even worked in a “hybrid” mode where some services are on a tailnet, others are on a company VPN, as we haven’t migrated the company over fully.
I don’t have high expectations for actual screen sharing a la VNC or whatever, but it does work, and my lowered expectations for how well I can work that way not specific to Tailscale.
But the radio module in that car is 3G, and because carriers have been discontinuing 3G Volvo cannot provide their service to my car.
There was roughly 12 months when it was impossible to upgrade the radio in my older model car. Now the radio upgrade is customer-paid and optional.
My point being, if they require the subscription I’d be careful to confirm the service is guaranteed regardless of the carriers and obsolete radios etc.
Running this way does involve more moving parts, but every part is relatively self-contained and we can replace one thing without disrupting everything.
[Edit] one other benefit I should add, all the other services like code review and CI are compatible with git and svn, so the development teams have consistent tools regardless which vcs they're running for a particular project.
That’s not necessarily the case though. Just as easily I can imagine the opposite might be true.
Who is saying the goal is “zero deaths at all costs”? I see governors seriously weighing the costs and risks, and talking about the response when (not if) reopening leads to new flare-ups.
Whitmer: “As we start to very shrewdly reopen (edited: autocorrect) sectors, we’ve got to measure every step of the way. If we start to see a spike, we have to be nimble enough to pull back...”
Newsom: “As we move into the next stage of reopening, we will do so with updated guidance to help qualifying businesses make modifications needed to lower the risk of COVID-19 exposure to customers and workers. Californians should prepare now for that second stage of reopening...”
Cuomo: “This is not a sustainable situation.” However, “You see that you reopen too soon or you reopen unintelligently and you can then have an immediate backlash.”
And so on. I concede there may be someone out there arguing for “zero” but I don’t see the goal of even the more aggressively locked down US states being “zero”.
—
TARS : [as Cooper repairs him] Settings. General settings. Security settings.
TARS : Honesty, new setting: ninety-five percent.
TARS : Confirmed. Additional settings.
Cooper : Humor, seventy-five percent.
TARS : Confirmed. Self destruct sequence in T minus 10, 9...
Cooper : Let's make that sixty percent.
TARS : Sixty percent, confirmed. Knock knock.
Cooper : You want fifty-five?
No, I’m not buying that this is an unfortunate surprise for him. He picked this fight intentionally.
If each commit notes the issue number in its comment (“Add indentation and trailing white space check to CI [#123]”) then you can see easily when each merge occurred by issue number.
Additionally in GitHub there are conveniences built from these little conventions. The “#123” is displayed as a hyperlink to the issue, and merging a commit that has “Fix #123” automatically closes the issue.
In cases where a feature is big enough to justify multiple commits for clarity, you can mention “#123” in all but the last commit, and “fix #123” in the final commit. Doing so partitions the linear history.
In fact, if someone else notices and fixes a regression caused by the merge, they can push additional commits later on but mention “#123” in their commit as well for documentary purposes. Seeing downstream commits “out of sequence” but with some earlier issue number is a clue this was probably a regression.
The Free Edition has limitations that impact how you would write code -- it supports only the "peer" API and not the "client" API, and is restricted in terms of backend storage choices and number of peers. So while it's very likely true there's perfect API compatibility when you want to step up to a paid edition, it makes you design to the artificial limitations they've used to set apart "free" from "paid".
Indeed, it's also not the recommended way to learn. The Datomic team says: "If you are trying Datomic for the first time, we recommend that you begin with a client library." In other words, the Free Edition doesn't include the client library that they recommend you try first.
If you step up to the Starter Edition you have full functionality and free updates but only for the first year. Beyond that, you start paying. Either you run in Cloud (as low as $1/day) or you purchase the on-prem Pro Edition ($5000/year).
Don't get me wrong. Cognitect has the right to charge whatever they like, and bundle features however they like. It's their intellectual property and they made the investment to create it.
But if you're building a hobby project then even $1/day may be more than you want to spend, and/or more than you want to impose on outside contributors to your codebase.
They then call out features like cross platform editing, a package manager, smart autocompletion, file system browser, multiple panes, find and replace, themes and customization. If this list defines what they mean by "modern" then Emacs has been modern since before modern was a thing text editors needed to be.
However "approachability" is the one characteristic that stands out because it's subjective and that's telling. I would guess most people who aren't already familiar with Emacs find it daunting, just a little bit too different from the rest, and I can see a natural reluctance to invest time in learning something so different if the outcome (how productive will I be?) is unclear.