I got the lowest of the low MacBooks on a black friday deal years ago for my wife that only had 8GB, thinking the same way. "It'll be fine for her needs." It was more than fine. It was good. Got myself one a month later. I don't know why but RAM is different on macOS.
You can in theory turn off gc but in practice no one does this because nearly everything is written with the assumption that allocations will be cleaned up by the gc. The compiler has no switches to help you run in a non-gc’d state. At best you can control when you run the gc.
Some of the best technical documentation I’ve ever written has straight up lies in it. Granted they were placed there in the service of distilling the most germane portions of the API I was trying to explain. But it made a huge difference once I decided my code in the library didn’t have to be my code in its documentation. I felt a little like a biographical writer who makes a composite character. But honestly I recommend trying it. Lie in your docs if it serves the greater goal of communicating what’s most important. Let the computer labor in the “truth” and its tediums.
I think the test is for this is whether the project is willing to break with the past to _keep_ the api simple, clean, and fast. You're right that is easier for new projects who have no backward compatibility to speak of. From what I've seen bevy has a strong culture of demanding good ergonomics for the users and reducing the api surface, and maybe it's thanks to rust's packaging, but they're very willing to break with the past to get it, which I appreciate.
The nice thing too is with cargo, should you ever commit to bevy, they can break the future, and you don't have to chase a moving target. You can just stick to your version. But they also provide guides to make moving up to the latest and greatest easy. Or at least that's been my experience as a bevy dabbler.
I’ve changed how I use Twitter. It’s now in readonly or reactive mode for me. I may comment and retweet but all new content is now being posted to mastodon. While this seemed hard to want to do at first, mastodon actually has a ton of quality of life improvements like edit your post to fix your typos. I swear I feel like I was in a Stockholm Syndrome with Twitter just accepting that you can’t edit your tweets. Why was that ever acceptable? You can’t add alt text to an image you already uploaded. You must choose to delete a tweet that is maybe gaining traction or live with your typing mistakes. Ugh. Honestly it feels like getting out of a bad relationship. Happy to invest in communities that are outside of Elon’s control.
I was a paying GitHub customer, but they had such a crummy private repo policy at the time (I think only 5 private repos were allowed) it forced me to make poor technical decisions: "I'll delete this github repo, keep my local copy, to open up a slot." I switched all my private repos to gitlab and stopped paying for github and was happier for it.
Later github changed its policy to something saner, but I never switched back to using github for private repos. This decision by gitlab even if it's rescinded, however, might give me the impetus to do so.
I use this style. It’s been very helpful. It feels like a nice scannable breadcrumb compared to my old commit titles. I did have trouble sometimes remembering the categories. Was it “doc” or “docs”? So I changed my git template to show this and my own enshrined categories. One category I added was “excise” for the removal of things.
Early on in, I used to write “refactor,doc,feature:” before I realized that one of the practices this is meant to encourage is a commit that does one of the things, not all of them. I’m not very strict about it. I always do the semantic title but if I have some documentation mingled with a refactor, oh well.
It's essentially for efficiency but not merely; it would be impractical to do with partial spends. Transactions are immutable and spend all of their inputs because it's easier to track and verify no double spend has occurred. If you allowed for partial spends, you'd have to trace the ancestry and descendants of all the transactions to verify whether there was enough bitcoin to spend it. This way if you have a transaction and it hasn't been spent since it originated, you know exactly how much can be spent.
I think it's natural to think of addresses as having a certain amount of bitcoin in them like an account at a bank. But bitcoin doesn't actually have accounts with balances. It just has transactions that have yet to be spent. You can calculate the amount of bitcoin that is spendable by an address so it looks like an account, which is what every wallet does but underneath it's just a collection of transactions that point to some address that you have the private key of.