I'm on a campus with these robots and over winter break, with the first big snow, a friend of mine was bored and apparently spent parts of his days just going around and helping the Starships that got caught in the snow.
Hey I'm also on venlafaxine! It's worked very well for me as well, though I don't think I can really speak to the topic of the OP since I started taking it when I was relatively young. I haven't noticed.. much? I guess?
Might be biased/stereotypical, but Rust's cargo does dependencies really well. It's as easy as npm to add new dependencies, but there aren't thousands needed to do anything, and if you take a look at your Cargo.lock/`cargo tree` you can really get to know each of them and what they do or why they're pulled in. I'm still bloat-wary, maybe as a leftover from doing webdev, but with less transitive dependencies in the first place you can actually go through and prune things that aren't needed, or open PRs to transitive deps to prune from their trees or update deps to the latest version to deduplicate your tree. (If there are multiple semver-incompatible versions in a dep tree, they just both get compiled in - for most apps though, you should be able to get the number of duplicates to 0 or almost that.)
Yep, one of the main things I did with nim for the month or 2 I was really into it was write a duktape wrapper[0] (in retrospect, I should have made the name a pun related to wrapping with tape...). It was pretty interesting given the stack-based nature of almost every duktape operation.
I was able to guess that it was the Mario game (but I was unsure since this is HN not gamefaqs), but I'd think there are probably other acronyms that people here might jump to - I think the acronym should probably be expanded in the title.
I mean I think in terms of maintainer resources Linux is one of the projects with the least to worry about, there are always companies who are willing to have a team work on stuff.
I though that was what the article was talking about as well, but I think it's actually the other way around - merge the last feature branch (the one that depends on the others) into the second to last, and keep collapsing down until you've got a PR targeting master with all the changes. That way, each individual changeset can be reviewed more easily, but the whole thing is still one "unit" that will be merged into master at once. (I think that's the gist.)
I mean git projects aren't generally given a (YYYY) marker, since they're expected to be continuously updated - no reason it couldn't be updated tomorrow if someone finds something new, and it's not like the url is pinned to the specific current commit. I think it should probably just not have a (YYYY), even though it is prose.
