I’m glad it doesnt.

Was it an intended pun?

Unfortunately, no.

Yet I think that had Judaism been more proselytist, it would have gained more followers and, probably, been more fanatical and aggressive.

Yes, that’s what I’m counting on, since I assume that ideas like religions take part in a long-term process of evolution. Unfortunately, the most whackiest, edgiest religions seem to be the most fit. Therefore my answer to the top level post.

I never said brainwashing children was ok as far as I can recall.

Fair enough, you didn’t. I apologize. I lost track of the chain of posters and mixed you up with the first poster who didn’t seem to recognize the dangers of passing belief to children.

As for Judaism, I stand by what I said: it’s not proselytist in the way other religions are, trying to convert other people. I don’t judge it as bad or as good, I don’t care. I just state a fact as I’ve seen/read.

That may be case. Which is possibly why, historically speaking, Judaism doesn’t seem to be on the winning side. Which is bad, because it means opportunities for more fanatical, agressive religions.

That’s not proselytising, it’s a while different thing

I don’t see your point. How is brainwashing children ok when wololo-ing people is not? Even from an egocentric perspective, you have to live in a society.

Pretty sure you can be born into judaism, though. Chances are, it is even the default scenario with even semi-religious parents.

That’s not “keeping to yourself” to me. That’s like passing the cigarettes to your kids.

If religious can keep to themselves

Since religions compete, that doesn’t sound feasible.

Git, probably

Please clarify, OP, did you mean

• hard to read semantically
• hard to read syntactically
• hard to relate how one could come with such a crappy idea, even considering all constraints of their time
• takes a lot brain real estate (justified or not)

?

Unfortunately nobody in charge has seen consequences for their decision to save a few theoretical nickels, so far. But then again, a lot of software/IT related stuff would look completely different, if anybody did.

Indeed. Makes it more work to filter the handful of good or even great articles from the 99.99% that use this platform for its apparent ease of money grubbing.

It’ll probably take Valhalla for me, personally.

I sure hope so, but I’m not overly optimistic tbh. The market is basically considered medical, therapeutic devices. It is as you imagine, probably worse. It isn’t easy to find prices directly, but the only way this range of vendors continues to exist in this niche market is to sell devices with the complexity of a keyboard for four to five digits. There is no competition worth talking about happening.

So unless very specific regulation takes place, I don’t see standardized access to braille displays happening.

Right, that is another item I wished more editors would have picked up. Besides - say - nested language modes.

Original poster is right by all accounts, of course. Now, let’s come up with exotic significant indentations.

function xyz(a, b):
|   var x = 2

|   if true:
|   |   do_something()
|   else:
|   |   do_something_else()

|   anyway()

Pro: Your editor no longer needs to implement indentation hints.

Con: Looks obstructive if not highlighted like an indentation hint.

Your turn.

That reminds me of those times when back on reddit some dev showed up to present their new GUI library. Bragging about how they were better than Qt devs etc. (even though they didn’t implement the hard parts, like working text fields or tables)

After some time a bunch of people had enough and started bullying those guys into submission about accessibility. After some time, every of those toolkits had support or at least plans for supporting screenreaders. Eventually, AccessKit became a thing.

Good times.

Of course, I might be overestimating how easy it is to get better braille oriented editors

A braille display traditionally is a personal, almost handfitted (estimated by price) device controlled by its screen reader software. Not the editor. This has some unfortunate implications:

• There is no (standardized) API to control your braille device directly. You could hand your screenreader filtered data, but that would be read as well. At best, you might be able to script your screen reader software to a varying degree of success. However:
  • Every aspect about this is extremely abysmal in every possible way, so it will likely require you to fork over some biiiiig amount of cash to one of the vendors to provide a brittle plugin. In particular if we are talking about JAWS. Think of extremely unstandardized COBOL dev with less stability and more price gauging involved.
  • As far as free readers are involved, only the proprietary and licensing aspect go away. Still, developing extensions is terrible in many ways. For example, for ORCA, I was able to find out that you can extend it somehow. Alledgedly. NVDA on the other hand has better documentation. That is to say, it has documentation. Now, you might recall that NVDA is written mostly in Python, and its devs rightly don’t even pretend that one could develop stable software in Python, so APIs might change. However, I wasn’t able to find a Filter function specific to braille output. That’s likely because
• From my superficial experience, developers of screen readers think of braille displays mostly as an alternative to speech. It even took them quite a while to be smart about not displaying redundant, long lines of text.

So yes, you might be overestimating how easy that is, compared to telling some diva asswipe chucklefuck to use that formatter or work at McDolans.

Thanks.

Is this to rpm-based distros what Mint is to deb-based distros?

From what I can see it is a slightly more detailed take on dependencies, loose coupling etc. Seems like it is formal and a bit weird, though. And a few part seem… extrapolated. So, no wonder it never caught on.