Exactly this, the "why?" section sounded weird to me. Paywalls (specifically subscriptions and paying for a service directly) are a way to not need AdWords, if those don't work then what can websites do to make back their hosting, dev, writing and all other costs than using Ads

Is there a simple way to just reenable all the ppas at once?

I'm afraid I don't know off the top of my head. I don't usually use PPA's, most things I want are in the repos, I compile myself, or a direct download.

I would there is, but I don't know how.

Isn't that just how proof by induction works? You assume the hypothesis is true for n and prove it for n+1

But you don't go from n-1 to n. You'd have to start at the infinite horses case where the conjecture must be true for, well, who knows what reason. Intuitively, "Consider the conjecture proven. If we reduce the difficulty, it's still proven" just seems obviously wrong.

There are two parts to an inductive proof:

1. Assuming that a property is true for N, prove that it is true for N+1.

2. Prove that the property is true for some concrete N where the proof for step 1 holds.

The trick is that you need to be sure to pick your concrete N correctly, as the article demonstrates. In particular, the problem with the "solution" in the article is that the proof given for step 1 doesn't hold for N=1, because N+1=2, and then just follow the rest of the argument from the article.

I still don’t quite understand. The inductive step shows n + 1 → n right? However with any positive base case b, n → n + 1 isn’t certain for any integers above b, only below it.

Say you’ve proved the case for n = 3 and that n + 1 → n. Then you’ve proven that 2 + 1 → 3, and by induction 1 + 1 → 2, However you’ve never proven it for n = 4 because n → n + 1 has never been established.

Or am I missing something here?

EDIT: I’ve seen in other posts that this the problem with OP is that it hides the transitivity of the operation. In fact the failure of the proof was that it proved transitivity with a false premise. If transitivity was true, then using n + 1 → n is just fine. The Wikipedia article for this statement is actually a lot clearer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_horses_are_the_same_color

You've got it backwards. Induction is usually proving that n implies n+1, So knowing it's true for 2 you can prove for 3.

The issue is that this proof only works with the base case of 2, for...reasons.

Does this only show for the current directory? It doesn't seem so from the documentation

No, just the last 10 commands, so almost totally different.

Exactly, I played RuneScape a bunch in highschool and would spend some weekends just grinding. Sounds boring af, but the fun thing was talking with my friends, or with complete strangers. MMO may be able to use social interaction to offset the problems of grinding, although it's probably not for free. Some incentivization for interacting with others, and safety features to feel comfortable to reach out, are needed.

Use broot as tree is not necessary of course `tree | less` works for that but as hinted in the article broot contains a lot more features. Fuzzy finding, preview, multiwindow copy/paste, renaming, directory navigation etc

Does it contain emacs? That would be nice.

What's wrong with dired mode? Ok, you'll get each directory in its own buffer. But, thinking of that, it shouldn't be to hard to make dired mode recurse into subdirectories inside the same buffer. (And fold/unfold like orgmode does. ;-)

It's a single variable setting now:

https://www.manueluberti.eu/emacs/2021/07/14/dired/

dired-subtree does this, albeit on demand, not eagerly descending into subdirectories. dired-hacks more generally has lots of good stuff like filtering etc.

There's a broot alternative called lf that opens files in $EDITOR

https://github.com/gokcehan/lf

What would be nice about that?

You could edit files that you just found and renamed. And when you edit files, then there is RCS integration and… linting, spellcheck, printing, you name it. It’s just a unix way. Is broot ISO/IEC 9945:2009 compliant?

/s

That it would contain emacs

Can broot render on a light background? I haven't found an option for that. If it could, I'd use it.

Yes it can. See https://dystroy.org/broot/skins/#white-background-skin

Is it required for open source software to support every combination of compiler, kernel, libc etc? We wouldn't say it has to support every version of any other dependency (not provided by system)

It's definitely a nice to have, but I think it's also valid for some project to say we support the version we used in CI and for releases. On the other hand you could say being stuck on a specific version is skin to relying on implementation details, which is a code smell atleast.

>Is it required for open source software to support every combination of compiler, kernel, libc etc?

If the versions of the components are within the range of what is defined at supported, then yes, absolutely. Most open source software supports a certain range of all the dependencies it needs to compile, like libfoo >= 0.2 - <= 0.5, libbar >= 1.0.0 - <= 1.8.0 and so on. This is encoded in the build scripts that check for this and set up the final Makefiles or whatever to actually compile the thing.

In practice it's more difficult because distributions often "fix" build scripts to allow versions outside this range, or the libraries they ship are heavily patched, but in that case it's still a bug, just some else's.

I think writing something against only a single specific version of anything is a shoddy practice and leads to brittle and ultimately hard to maintain software. It means you can't easily do updates and will depend on bugs in whatever version you use.

If you seriously suggested that way to handle things to an open source project most would laugh at you.

That's what people are doing with Alpine and Musl!

The tide prompt for fish has an option to add a horizontal rule and spaces between each command

I would love to know what the errors actually were, maybe a deeper dive into what and why compatibility was supposedly broken. Did the rust developers know that they were breaking compatibility? Firefox is a pretty big high profile user of rust, a breaking change couldn't have just snuck by.

Firefox only cares about Firefox working with the specific rust versions they intend to support. They also use some hidden non document rust flags to use unstable rust options/features on stable (but increasingly less, the flag exists only for bootstraping rust itself and isn't meant to be used by anything else).

Which is fine for Firefox itself.

Just a problem for anyone forking of Firefox. (Or for other reasons trying to build it with a different rust version.)