I use cash to do my part to slow down its disappearance. I like the fact that it is difficult for central powers to control, and its existence means that people can more easily live off the grid. I like the ability to hand someone a tip without accessing the Internet. At the same time, I think the Bitcoin Lightning Network is pretty cool. I guess I like options.
I've always thought of nano as simplistic, but reading the discussion here, I see there is more to it than I thought.
I learned vi (precursor of vim) in the 1980s and the commands became second nature to me. However, as window-based systems and applications became the norm, I found it difficult to switch between vim and Windows or Mac applications, including the web. A good example of my problem involves the use of the escape key in vim to switch out of text entry mode, but many other apps use escape to cancel an action. I got tired of typing a paragraph, hitting escape, and then having to retype the paragraph because I had cancelled my input.
Nevertheless, it's great to have an editor I can easily invoke from the Linux command-line, so I still use vim for that. However, I will consider moving to nano for that purpose. At my age, I may never know it as well as the vi/vim I learned in my younger days, but it should still be useful.
Upvote for mentioning WordStar. I only used it some in the Texas A&M computer lab. I went from my dad's Apple II, to a Commodore 64 I bought in college, to a Macintosh after I graduated. None of them were WordStar platforms, but I remember it was very popular in the CP/M and MS-DOS world before WordPerfect took over.
I used to use ed when all I had was a single terminal screen/window and a compiler error message. Ed doesn't clear the screen, so you can still see the message. Vi or emacs would clear the error message away. Of course, in a multi-window situation, the compiler output is usually in one window or pane and the editor in another, so this is moot now.
An alternative hypothesis does not rule out the other possibilities, even if it provides a better explanation. What matters is what actually happened, not what provides the neatest explanation.
The claim is being made that no other alternative hypothesis exists which can explain the features of the virus, so it must have come from a BSL lab.
This is an alternative hypothesis which is simpler and less convoluted and does, in fact, completely undermine the "it can't be anything other than bioweapons research" argument.
You're aiming your criticism at the wrong end of the argument.
So they appear to have mutually agreed to remove content to conform to the prevailing pressure to restrict public discourse to only politically correct content. While it is certainly their right to make any business arrangement they want, it is distressing that open conversation continues to shrink in our world, whether it be through unilateral cancelation or mutual agreement for the sake of money.
> it is distressing that open conversation continues to shrink in our world
Are you sure about that? When has talk about Bigfoot, moon landing conspiracies, the government turning frogs gay, and other such nonsense been welcome in "open conversation"?
I suspect the point of contention here is that people expect their unsubstantiated nonsense to be taken seriously, treated with respect, and accepted by the general public.
Modern people often portray the Middle Ages as a time of dullness, ignorance, and misery, such as depicted in the movie Monty Python and the Holy Grail. I think this makes us feel better about how superior we are today. The truth is that medieval life was much richer and more beautiful than the stereotype implies.
