Source?
Source?
Emacs Orgmode
emacs org-mode publish
https://orgmode.org/worg/org-tutorials/org-publish-html-tutorial.html
emacs org-mode meets all of these criteria
M-% NixOS RET Guix RET !
But yes 80% of my comment applies to Nix as well, as of course Nix is older and Guix is (conceptually) based on Nix. Though I personally use/prefer Guix.
Yes GNU Guix is a linux distro.
The package manager for Guix (also called guix) is also a portable package manager which works on any linux distro, similar to flatpak, nix, homebrew, etc.
Guix’s claim to fame is that it is a functional distro/package manager, meaning that all changes are atomic, so installing/upgrading/deleting packages never leaves your system in a broken state.
Not only that, but if you make some change to your system and it breaks for normal reasons (e.g. newest software version has a bug), you can roll back to your previous system state with all your previous packages and their versions, and this roll-back operation is also atomic.
Guix the distro not only let’s you do package management this way, but also let’s you do declarative system configuration. This means rather than manually rummaging around /etc changing files and hoping nothing breaks, there’s simply a single config file which declares all of your system configuration. From your kernel to users, partitions, system services, and just about anything else, all the configuration is declaratively done in one place with one language (Guile Scheme). Any changes you make to your system this way are also of course atomic and can be rolled back.
It even comes with a built in system called guix home which lets you bring that same level of declarative, atomic configuration to your user’s home environment, letting you manage user level packages, dotfiles, env variables, and more with a single home configuration file.
There are other goodies too, such as the ability to spawn one-off shell environments with the guix shell command, dropping you in a shell with all the packages and env variables you declare, keeping your regular user environment clean (very nice for development).
There’s even more, but at this point if you’re still interested just head over to the site and the docs.
codeberg
it’s like github but non-corporate free software
it’s very polished and featurful
it’s built upon/by the same devs as forgejo, which is open tech to self host your own git server (with federation potentially coming), so supporting one supports the other
If I understand you correctly, this is trivial in emacs:
(defun insert-text ()
(interactive)
(insert "your text here"))
(global-set-key your-keybind-here #'insert-text)
You could make it a format string if it relies on data specific to some file or parameter. You could also make the keybind local to certain modes/files rather than a global keybind if you don’t want to pollute your keybind space.
emacs org-mode
guix home reconfigure home-config.scm
I think I said something a bit stronger than what I meant. I’m not averse to sharing my thoughts on posts, I’ve just never held it against a post if the OP happens to not provide some comment containing their thoughts on it.
I do see what you’re saying about not knowing what something is, and not wanting to spend ~1 hour on it to find out. Though I still don’t think that’s what downvoting is for (unless you have positive evidence that it’s spam).
Mainly I disagree with “I’ll downvote it to make room for the posts that are definitely good”. That’s just very much not my philosophy and not one I ever took to be a majority view. Downvoting for me means the content is not good/appropriate/whatever. It’s a sign of negativity, and being not definitely good != being bad.
I appreciate you being the 1/8 to actually state their reason!
Everything seemed pretty self-explanatory to me in a community like this since:
Also I wholehartedly disagree with downvoting something as spam when you have no idea what it is. And why do you need me to tell you what “we’re” doing here? It’s not for me to say whether this is a thread for roasting the game or praising it or anything else. I’m not sure I could even think of a more clear, straightforward title (and it’s simply the video title).
I also don’t feel it’s my obligation to share my thoughts on something I post. As OP I prefer for people to think for themselves and form their own opinion about the content.
I had the same thought lol
Yeah is there some specific reason that I’m missing? I’ve never posted something like this before anywhere on lemmy.
I’m not trying to push an agenda. I don’t know what you mean by “picking and choosing writings”. I’m still not sure exactly what you’re saying.
If you’re saying there are no such thing as “founding fathers”, I think that’s just wrong in the sense that the myth of the founding fathers is a part of American culture and is taught in American schools. There is no “founding father” gene or element, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
If you’re saying all the people who were delegates at those conventions are equally “founding fathers” because they helped forge the documents, then sure, I can respect that opinion. But some of those delegates undoubtedly played a significantly larger role in early American history than others (including the creation of those documents!). Hence why we learn about a select few of them, and not all ~100 (although I guess that would also be impractical in a school setting). The specific number 7 is a bit arbitrary, but ~10 were a lot more important than the rest.
Sure there’s some degree of arbitriness to 7, but I don’t think you could reasonably claim it’s any less than 7, and 7 is even a number wikipedia throws around. Not that there are only 7, just that there are 7 particularly important ones.
I really just think the 13 the current US flag has looks too busy, but this is the only “American” number I could think of which was less than 13. If you have others I’d love to hear!
Can you say more about the stars? Are you against them being in a circle?
There’s not really any way to have them “fill up” the blue while still being in a circle (even if you change their sizes), unless you change the ratio of the blue, which would cause it to deviate from that of the flag itself. Maybe I can cook up a 2:3 version for ya.
As for the size of the stars, again they are in the maximum radius circle which fits in the blue, so can’t change their position, and making them any bigger would cause them to touch each other or at least feel cramped.
The stars in a circle in the blue is a classic American design which has been done on the flag before (besty ross, cowpens, etc.).
I don’t understand. What do the delegates of the Second Continental Congress and Constitutional Convention have to do with anything?
Look up what?