Looks like Nebula uses go-libp2p and all of the supported networks listed in the README use libp2p for their p2p networking. Mainline DHT doesn't support the same transport protocols that libp2p supports (such ash TCP+Yamux+Noise) which is probably why Nebula doesn't support Bittorrent
I'd like to recommend giving Daylio [1] a try if you want to start journaling. Someone on HN recommended this two years ago and I decided to try it because all past attempts at journaling had failed miserably after few weeks. I'm now on a 700+ day streak and I'm really happy that I started doing this 2 years ago. So much has happened and it's all documented. It takes so little effort to add an entry for the day and reading past entries is fun because what actually happened past year is not just a blur but a detailed record of activities, words and photos.
FWIW, I actually think syntax is sometimes the hard part about programming, especially when not working with a language frequently. I never worked much with C++, but occasionally come across it. Whenever this happens, it feels like things could be more readable, but maybe I'm biased.
>I mean how do you even use the numbers? Who looks at code and says "no, this should be exactly 8 lines below this one." I just Alt + Down until it's right. I'd spend more time trying to write the command right than I'd spend just pressing the keys multiple times.
With relative line numbers it's really easy actually. Typing dd7jp takes less effort than pressing alt + down multiple times and I have hard time believing you'd be make this argument if you were comfortable with modal editing.
In fact, none of the alternatives you listed seem attractive if you're accustomed to modal editing. How is Home, Shift + End, Delete a good alternative to dd? So much movement to do a simple operation.
I would highly recommend you giving it an honest try and if it doesn't work, you can always go back to editing the traditional way but once it clicks, "the old" way feels super awkward.
Is there any P2P network that fits that criteria? The first time you connect, you need to know at least one publicly reachable node but I fail to see how that relates to WebSocket/WebRTC. I think central server is somewhat ambiguous because the bootnode could be any node on the network you have prior knowledge of.
The standards are carefully defined in a way that creates server dependency. WebSocket outright does not allow connections to other browsers directly. WebRTC does, but you are extremely limited in how you could do discovery. I think both are intentional.
git-rebase is stupid because somebody doesn't know how to use it?
I use it all the time and I really like how I can make garbage commits (wip, test) and then squash them into atomic commits which are easy to review and later on easy to bisect when inevitably mistakes happen. Sure I've fucked up too when I was learning on how to use it and those were some painful mistakes but only through using it and making those mistakes have I learned to use the tool to great advantage (clean history).
> git-rebase is stupid because somebody doesn't know how to use it?
The whole purpose of source control is to reliably track code changes so you don't lose anything and can revert to any point or recover from bad merges. Since rebase permits you to violate this core purpose and literally lose the entire history of code changes, then yes, it is stupid.
The trouble with git rebase is that it can create havoc by those who don't understand what it is doing conceptually, and (probably more importantly) how to recover when things go wrong.
When I hear people griping about rebase, I assume that nobody took the time to teach them how to use reflog first. Once I had an understanding of reflog, I could mess up all I wanted (without pushing) and recover. In that environment, rebase can become a very useful tool. Without being able to recover, rebase becomes a tool of confusing irreversible destruction.
> git-rebase is stupid because somebody doesn't know how to use it?
No, it's stupid because it's really common for people to fuck it up, and because the purported benefits (clean history) are not something which matters.
You can still enjoy the language without engaging in this drama. I only know about this because it's on the front page of HN (maybe I'm living under a rock) and yet the language still works nicely and I enjoy writing it immensely.
The problem is, this isn't "drama in the Rust community", this is repeated gross incompetence and malevolence spanning years from the very top of Rust leadership. It's completely warranted to let that affect your decision about whether to rely on that language (and hence its leadership) or not.
Drama like this has influence on language evolution, on this specific context, reflection work from ThePHD was stopped and his employer withdrawn from all ongoing Rust efforts.
Dramas in Python and C++ communities also had similar side effects on the people that were involved, and withdraw their contributions.
>You can also tell on company hardware and on company accounts if the junior's browsing history represents getting better or just resting on their haunches because they want someone else to do the thinking.
Are you saying the mentor should actually go and check the browsing history of one their engineers to verify whether they've actually done "correct work" or what are you trying to say exactly? This sounds to me like micromanagement of the highest order.
What I'm saying is that they already do it and already have access to enough information to know who is making the most of a rabbit hole and who is not. Code commit frequency is sufficient in itself.
Genuine question, why? It's not like the project (at least by default) owes anybody any explanation why it's run the way it is or why contributions are not accepted.
The project owner could of course just write “No” without any explanation, but most projects I’ve seen that don’t take PRs have a reason for it: they prefer patches by mailing list, or don’t accept contributions but have a forum where you can post patches, or are a mirror of an upstream you should contribute to instead, or whatever. Usually this information is in the readme, or a wiki somewhere, or an automated PR-closing bot; but it would be a lot easier all round if GitHub let you replace the PR tab with some text so there was a consistent place to look for this information.
-Nobody- cares if your lonesome project is not accepting PR or even better stands denuded of any pretense of README, etc. For these it is sufficient to have a OSS license named and you’re good to go. And if you ignore PRs — and you are under no obligations to do this imho — no one will post to HN to tattle on you, because:
All these discussions are about ~hot properties. Implicit in all this is ego, prestige, and potential for profits, that is ownership, attribution, and control of some kind. You see the same dynamics apply at the next level of OSS projects hitting pay dirt ($) and locking horns with Cloud providers and ‘modifying’ OSS licenses.
