Unfortunately this is not the case. A lot of people leave school assuming that scientific discoveries are eternal, unfailable truth that we just know to be true. Few ever understand how we acquired our knowledge and how to lewrn to understand it. Many assume you ‘just have to learn it’. Those your play around with computers or other stuff have an advantage. They know how to gain understanding not just how to learn facts.

Yes please. Passively cooled Framework with a much longer runtime on battery => awesome.

Such a great project. Bringing joy to a friend and reduce e-waste at the same time. Love it. Would give away the SSD from my old Core 2 Duo based laptop (which got replaced by a used Gen4 i7 laptop from my company when they sold the devices to employees for very little money. Now they are giving them to schools for free, which is great). Sending it around half the planet is neither free nor sustainable, though. Would be cheaper to buy a new one. But maybe you find someone to help out. For me, an SSD was a great improvement for that old machine. As stated in another comment, upgrading RAM did not work in that particular case.

Fun fact: The machine might even have more RAM. I also had an laptop with a Core 2 Duo. The mainboard supported up to 4GB of RAM. However, the BIOS only supported 3GB (for whatever reason). Around 200MB are used for the iGPU. That left me with 2.8GB of RAM out of 4GB.

I would not call it a bash. Go’s approach naturally comes up in discussions on async Rust. Thus, it makes sense to at least briefly mentioning the trade-offs that approach has.

Yeah, I am always happy if a project not only mentions where it shines but also where it does not. But it is common practice not to do so. Same in academic publishing. Everybody is focused on selling oneself, it seems.

Maybe ‘failing’ is too strong. What I mean is that in situations like the one I showed, texture healing cannot solve the problem of uneven texture. Not that they claimed it does. It just eases the problem. I like to know the trade-offs. When does it provide an improvement and when not? What tensions does that create?

From a users point of view, I do not know if it ‘fails’ or not. I totally agree with you. Maybe the I would find to distinct ‘m’ glyphs annoying, maybe not. And example emphasizes the ‘problem’. Maybe, I woukd even notice while coding or writing. To know that, I need to try. I just like to know the trade-offs in advance.

Technically, font healing is a neat idea. It fails for text that does not meat its requirements, i.e. two ‘m’ next to each other. Depending on the characters around them, this might create two different ‘m’.

This is unavoidable, of course. The only solution are proportional fonts. So font healing is a nice idea. It creates a more consistent spacing at the price of less consistent glyphs. Whether one likes this compromise, is a matter of taste. I personally lean towards consistent glyphs, but I did not try it for an extended period.

I use Linux where EurKEY is available w/o extra install. On Windows, EurKEY can be installed as a layout. I use US ANSI keycaps. The good thing about EurKEY is that ‘ä’ is on AltGr-a, ‘ö’ on AltGr-o. Much easier to remember than US International, at least for German.

I switched from ISO to ANSI a few month ago. I touch type and I need German umlauts. Just as a background. This required me to find a layout that supports umlauts. I went with EurKEY. Overall, switching was easy. I do need a larger AltGr for umlauts but overall, switching was no big deal. I do like the shape of the return key on ANSI and that there are fewer keys right to my right pinky (on the home row). Typing umlauts is slightly less convenient, especially when capitalized, but not by much. Switching between ISO and ANSI and at the same time German layout and EurKEY is easy for me. Side note: I switched for the same reason (keycaps) and for writing code.