The infinitive form of verbs in English always starts with "to", as in "to add", "to fix" etc. That would be a very strange commit message. Imperative is normal: "Add x feature" etc
This is not correct; many infinitives are marked by "to" and many aren't. Such marking may, depending on context, be required, optional, or prohibited. For example, in "this can be a hassle", "be" is an infinitive. There just isn't any way to interpret it as an imperative. Who are you commanding?
And in the commit message "Add feature X", "add" is likewise an infinitive.
Eh? "To be" is not the main verb in that sentence so of course it's in infinitive form. "Add feature X" is imperative. "To add feature X" is infinitive.
> "To be" is not the main verb in that sentence ["this can be a hassle"] so of course it's in infinitive form.
This directly conflicts with your earlier statement that
> The infinitive form of verbs in English always starts with "to", as in "to add", "to fix" etc.
That earlier statement is wrong, so contradicting it doesn't really present a problem, but you've left me pretty confused as to what you think you're saying.
Whether "be" is the "main verb" in that sentence is a more interesting question. There's a decent argument that it is, in that "this can be a hassle" is easily viewed as a modified form of the sentence "this is a hassle", but not as a modified form of the defective sentence "this can". But you're correct that the standard analysis just says that "this can be a hassle" is sentence where the subject is "this", the verb is "can", and the object is an infinitive clause.
What does using the word angiosperme have to do with intelligence? I used to work in finance and those guys used all the same words I used: algorithm, runtime, microservice, you name it, but none of them had the foggiest idea what any of it meant.
There's no correlation at all between vocabulary used and intelligence. More intelligent people will actually use a smaller vocabulary if anything.
There is a strong correlation between vocabulary and intelligence though. It's why there is a vocabulary element to the Wechsler Intelligence Scale. I really doubt that most intelligent people use a smaller vocabulary because it's inefficient when compared to using more specialized words. You can convey more meaning to people with similar levels of understanding in fewer words.
Yes declarative knowledge is totally overrated. Procedural knowledge is the hard part.
I think the "elites", who are of lower intelligence[1] and only fit for parroting half understood declarative knowledge, have successfully managed to manipulate public opinion that declarative knowledge is superior to actually knowing how something works.
[1] They have high psychological/manipulative intelligence though, which is needed to convince others to do the actual work.
I'm always cautious about making assumptions of "intelligence" from the outside, for people who have expertise or experience that I don't have.
Back in the Reagan days, it came out that his presidential decision-making process for most things was to get it on a one-page memo with a yes/no checkbox. Boy howdy, did we have a lot of fun mocking that idiot who didn't know what he was signing! A lifetime later, I've come to realize that was a brilliant strategy on his part. He didn't waste time on deep study of every little thing that needed his decisions all the time. He surrounded himself with trusted advisors who could neatly sum up the pros and cons for him, so he could focus on the decision, not the analysis.
I thought Reagan was an idiot, because I was an idiot.
If we take the definition to refer to points that are exactly distance d, rather than points that are within distance d, I think the original formulation is correct.
Yes, I also had this smug attitude, having used the X terminals (the real ones, as in physical X terminals) back in 1994 or so, and then using X11 on various machines and operating systems since then.
Then I started using Mac OS X and I realized that it's actually nice to be able to select text and NOT have it auto-copied obliterating my clipboard, but instead be able to replace it using Command-V. And it's a pretty cool invention that the same shortcuts work in all applications, consistently. And that I can copy text in any application and paste it in any other using the same shortcut. And that I don't have to use the middle mouse button, which is a scrollwheel these days and is difficult to hit without invoking the scroll functionality. And it's pretty nice to be able to paste to where the cursor is RIGHT NOW without carefully positioning the mouse pointer and making sure it doesn't move while you carefully try to hit the middle button (otherwise your text will get inserted wherever the mouse moves in the meantime, if you are in a browser edit window).
I could go on. There are so many things which can be done better if we drop the "the way X11 did this is the best way, ever" attitude.
And then, eventually, once we get text copy/paste right, we can get to copying images, which again is a totally solved problem on Mac OS X.
"The other clipboard" is part of the problem I'm describing. Why would you have "the other clipboard" in your system?
But you know what: I've read the replies in this discussion and I rest my case. It seems that most Linux users are OK with the current situation and do not even want to hear about the possibility of a better solution. This is why things will not change.
I'll just use OS X for development, happily paying Apple a premium for getting things to work for me.
> It seems that most Linux users are OK with the current situation
Most people are saying they aren't even _aware_ of the problem, and you've completely failed to describe it here. No one even knows what the hell you are talking about, maybe give it a rest?
A solution to what? In my opinion, it’s quite convenient to have access to both. Sometimes I need to copy from a webpage but then realize I could speed up by middle click pasting a few other things, and then using ctrl-v for the first copy. I like having them separate.
Why should things change just because you want them to? We're a community of hackers who built our own operating system. You're very welcome to join us but unless you're willing to pay us what you're willing to pay Apple you're going to have to implement what you want yourself. But you're free to implement it yourself. That freedom is what we value.
This seems like an overly personal take from someone who cannot possibly claim to represent all Linux users.
There are plenty of Linux users with gripes about the UI and various aspects of the environment, hence why there are so many bloody Linux apps that basically do the same thing, so many desktop environments, and more being made every day.
An idea about the user experience is worth paying attention to even if they can't implement it themselves. To brush off the idea with a "well, if you like it so much, make it yourself" is churlish and dismissive. It's not an attitude that helps advance beyond the status quo.
It seems like closed-mindedness to constructive criticism, alarmingly similar to the mindset GNOME's developers have towards basically everybody, stubbornly refusing to accept that other peoples' points of view can have merit and value.
Ironically, it's a very closed, Microsoftian value for a Linux user to hold: Not Invented Here.
It's nothing to do with not invented here. It's just not my itch, so why should I scratch it? If you want someone else to scratch your itch you have to pay them.
My point is only to highlight that these are very different worlds. Apple decides what you want then charges for it. We say, here, this is what I want, but feel free to make it what you want. There are always going to be pros and cons.
> It's just not my itch, so why should I scratch it?
But why must you put it down?
It may not be your itch, but equally, Linux is not your OS. It's everybody's. Other people may happen to share the same sentiment about certain things. That's how things change, evolve, develop, improve.
You cannot be dismissive on everybody else's behalf.
> Apple decides what you want and then charges for it. We say, here, this is what I want, but feel free to make it what you want
First, who is 'we'? I still feel like you're trying to represent the feeling of a lot of people whose opinions may differ wildly from your own.
Aside from that, not everybody who uses Linux does so for this factor of openness and flexibility. There are plenty of Linux users who wish it would Just Work™ — but, again, their contributions to the discussion shouldn't be poo-pooed just because they don't have the time or resources to reimplement that with which they're familiar.
Some people can only contribute ideas, and that's just fine; it might turn out that only when some developer with some free time on his or her hands sees those ideas that they might then be implemented.
X has the manual clipboard as well, though. It's always worked for me. Do you have any specific examples of where it fails?
> is a totally solved problem on Mac OS X.
It's solved there because it's a walled garden. It's essentially a different problem that they've solved. The problem here is making that work while still being the free software operating system we love.
I wish there was an option somewhere to disable this. I middle-click-paste by accident way too often. I hate having two separate clipboards that I have to think about what's in each.
please tell me there's something like ditto https://ditto-cp.sourceforge.io/ for X. i've got mine bound to C-` on windows 10 and can't work on a desktop which doesn't have it installed.
