I wish I spent the time trying to learn vIm learning something which is actually productive instead of hoping to have a better editing/writing flow with some deprecated, obscure CLI editor with a way too steep learning curve.
I learned Vim because the internet went out one day and I finally decided to check out `$ vimtutor`.
15 minutes later after learning commands like A, I, o, O, dd, p, and P it was clear to me that I wanted to use Vim seriously.
The hard part was arriving at a workflow, a set of plugins that I actually liked using. I imagine a great deal of people don't get to that point. I almost didn't. Especially since the commonly recommended plugins like NERDTree are awkward and clunky.
I think discovering CtrlP was the turning point for me.
A lot of luck was definitely involved. Sometimes I stay up at night wondering just how many versions of myself had given up on Vim when my wavefunction collapsed and I happened to be the chosen eigenstate that stuck with it.
Learning Vim isn't that hard - it does take a few days of study to learn the core idioms of movement and manipulation, but once you wrap your head around it the rest is just practice and building muscle memory.
As far as "actually productive," having a better editing/writing flow is one of the biggest productivity enhancements I've encountered in my programming career.
When I read these kind of comments, I am not sure if these commentators are compensated better than China's 50 cent party. Some mturk generated comments would probably provide more qualitative contributions than something like this.
> When I read these kind of comments, I am not sure if these commentators are compensated better than China's 50 cent party. Some mturk generated comments would probably provide more qualitative contributions than something like this.
I doubt anyone bothers to pay people to post this stuff to Hacker News. The battle over crypto is essentially over at this point.
As an aside, 'qualitative' is not a synonym for 'quality'; it means 'involving distinctions based on qualities' and contrasts with 'quantitative', which refers to distinctions based on numerical measurements.
I have seen repeatedly comments appearing on subjects like these, written by relatively new accounts and supporting some form of surveillance measures. What they have in common is, that they just make a 1-sentence statement "we should be thankful that someone is protecting us", and provide no further arguments for their case. But them being troll baits might be more realistic. After all we are still arguing about it.
If you are trying to nit-pick about word definitions, kindly include the second part of the definition, that clearly supports my use of the word for comparing good/bad quality: "2. qualitative - relating to or involving comparisons based on qualities".
> I wish he had succeed. Digital, not just email, encryption is a threat to national security.
Since this comment is on its way to being killed, I quoted the entirety so my response would not be deprived of context.
Twenty years ago, this would have engendered actual debate. Fifteen years ago, it would have been harder to defend, but it would have found defenders. Now, of course, it's seen as utterly absurd and impossible to consider seriously.
Our culture has come to depend on encryption to do even the most basic business; trying to shove the genie into the bottle even partway, by mandating weaker encryption, would simply open our businesses' bank vaults and warehouses to criminals from around the world.
The nail in the coffin for crypto bans seemed (to me) to be the rise of crypto competency overseas. In the mid to late 1990s there was a lot of progress outside the US.
Also, when VISA comes politely knocking, saying "We'd really like our stuff to be secure, and available to anyone," congre$$ tend$ to li$ten.
"$350 In Two Days With Three Pages" sounds really awesome (and a bit linkbait-y), but how many hours did you actually work? Looks like you had to do a lot of manual labor.
I am also a bit skeptical about it otherwise, seeing as this is simply a proxy for another service.
Not really. You need at least "The C Programming FAQ", by Steve Summit (it has a very useful Internet (partial) version) and one or two more.
Those who understand K&R2 and C-FAQs know better than 90% of C programmers.
The file was modified Oct 21st, which was right before the iPad Mini was announced. As has already been pointed out it's on every other international site too.
I am amazed at how they are - I can't seem to think of another accurate description - trolling the same legal system which they were trying to use for blocking the competition.
