I agree, getting my comment flagged for nitpicking spelling in a post about nitpicking spelling is very exhausting. Even more so when the person I nitpicked replied to my comment and showed no issue with my nitpick.
Also the downvotes don't really matter, here's another comment if you wish to downvote me again in this post. Ironically my flagged comment actually had an upvote before getting flagged.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not trolling.
3 reasons come to mind -
1. There's a vast and profound difference between trimming inefficiencies ("cutting waste") and eliminating a valuable function. It's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
2. This entire administration and its main actors have given zero reason to assume what they are doing is in good faith. In fact, quite the opposite they have incited worry that their motivations are not honest.
3. They are doing this with a shocking lack of oversight, on their own terms.
1. The baby in this analogy is not defined objectively. Both sides disagree about which is the baby and which is the bathwater. I can see both sides here. For example, I think USAID is doing a lot of good work all over the world, but I also don't think a country with such a huge deficit should be spending money like that. Put on your own oxygen mask before you help those around you.
2. What type of actions/behaviors would lead you to believe this is being done in good faith? That seems somewhat hard to demonstrate when the other side almost universally assumes you never do anything in good faith.
3. This is the fault of our government structure since always and specifically our Congress over the last many decades, which has ceded more and more of the actual running of government to unelected civil servants who technically fall under the umbrella of the Executive branch. If we wanted to prevent things like this from being done, we should've had an actual civil service ala the UK, which although it falls under their Executive branch, it is not unilaterally controlled by it (e.g. the Civil Service Commission prevents the PM from just doing whatever he wants).
As a secondary note, oversight in this case seems somewhat hard to achieve, given the usual problem of "who watches the watchers?" If you think some part of the government is performing poorly and that this is systemic, who do you trust to provide oversight that might not themselves have ulterior motives to preserve the status quo?
Everyone deserves a presumption of good faith by default. But Trump has a long history of dishonesty and lawbreaking, culminating in an attempted self-coup in 2020. At some point, he doesn't deserve a presumption of good faith anymore. And he passed that point a long, long time ago.
This is perhaps the single biggest disconnect I see between Democrats and Republicans right now. To Democrats, Trump is "the man who attempted a self-coup", and everything he does is viewed in that light. Whereas Republicans seem to think that it just wasn't a big deal that Trump tried to overturn the 2020 election.
How exactly did Trump attempt a self-coup? What words or actions (on his part) would you say qualify for that description?
There were all sorts of bad intentions on the part of the rioters/coupers/whatever on January 6th, but AFAIK there is very little evidence to indicate these people were directed by Trump in any meaningful way.
The fundamental definition of a democracy is that the candidate who wins the election, gets to be in power. Trump lost the 2020 election, yet tried to stay in power. If Trump had succeeded at staying in power despite losing the election, then America would no longer have met the definition of a democracy. Therefore, Trump tried to overturn American democracy.
Do you recognize that Trump tried to overturn American democracy? If not: which part of the above paragraph do you disagree with?
In your comment, you seem to be referring to the fact that Trump didn't specifically call for violence on Jan 6. Depending on how exactly you define "coup", you could argue that Trump didn't personally attempt a coup, but rather Trump's supporters attempted a coup on his behalf while he cheered them on (and subsequently pardoned them). I think this is an irrelevant technicality; if Trump's supporters' attempted coup had succeeded, then American democracy would be just as dead as if Trump personally committed the coup.
Returning to the original topic: If you consider Trump's entire conduct around the 2020 election (as well as his extensive history of other dishonesty and lawbreaking) do you genuinely believe that the Democrats still owe Trump a presumption of good faith?
This is honestly the first time I’ve ever heard someone online put their own country down and give the US some credit. I’m so used to us being the butt of anger and jokes that this is kind of refreshing to read.
But overall I think most developed countries have similar demographics here. There are powerful and vocal anti intellectuals and then there are less vocal critical thinkers.
Probably helpful to understand the API first before understanding the implementation. There is a well known guide here: http://silverhammermba.github.io/emberb/
> It should be readable, as a complete document, in its existing text form without any transformation.
Is this _needed_, or is this nice to have?
A markup language annotates text and describes _how it should be rendered_. It feels redundant to describe how a document should be rendered (presumable for final consumption) _and_ have the document be readable as-is.
Case in point: I'd argue that HTML is a great markup language. I wouldn't call it the most readable in its current form.
I agree with the spirit here, but it ultimately feels more "nice to have" than truly required.
Very much disagree. Think about Markdown readmes. It's great, and very useful, that when looking through a git repo that I can just look at the readme in a shell or text editor, and also as important, diffs when changing a markdown file are a lot cleaner/easier to understand. Simultaneously, it's also great that I get a nice formatted readme page when I'm browsing a GitHub repo, for example.
As the sibling commenter said, if all you care about is the output why wouldn't you just write it in Word?
Love the project but I really wish projects (especially linux projects) would include a "plain english" description of what this does at the top. Like, even one sentence.
1. Not everyone knows what AutoHotkey is and what it does. I had to google it.
2. Not everyone speaks english. Diving into a description that includes words like "fault tolerant, extensible, high availability" so infuriatingly confusing.
If everyone wrote software to be used by 5 years old without any interest in looking up things they don't understand (yet) themselves, we'd never move the field forward.
AutoHotKey is not normally aimed at developers but highly skilled administrators. If you target your advertising at this market you would likely get more traction.
Moving the field of software development is about solving more problems for people without putting a large learning curve in their way.
Yes some aspects will always require expertise but that is not an advantage.
1. Thank you for the suggestion. I added the one-liner description from the Windows website to the top of the Readme.
2. Those words aren't in the Readme so I'm a bit confused. I guess these were just examples though. I am not a native speaker either though... if you really think there's uncommon words to be found, I would welcome a PR.
> I added the one-liner description from the Windows website.
Bad idea, you don't need an infringement case. Try this instead: "An easy to learn language for automating your Linux computer". People who don't know what AHK is don't care that this project is a port of it, so no need to mention that in the description.
tbh your suggestion would confuse me as well, i think the scope or better said usp of ahk is more specific, and the proposed description could very well mean bash or other comparable tools
