Next time you're talking to a capture-the-whole-board believer, if you want to blow their mind, first do some basic combinatorics to explain how many captures you'd need for the variation on a basic board; then ask them how many positions there are on a wah.
I had the pleasure of working with Jeff in ... I want to say 2012 - he taught me so much, is a fabulous developer and teammate, and we had some great times together.
I love this take. I was a die-hard Vim/Neovim zealot... but these days I absolutely love the ecosystem of tools that support normal mode. For so long hand-cramping emacs keybindings were sort-of-standard-in-a-few-places.
If you're not convinced vimming is the best way to interact with your editor, you probably haven't seen a really proficient vimmer.
And meanwhile in every thread or article about vim, it is very rare to mention remapping Caps Lock to Escape (or the other lesser IMHO lesser options ) even though one third of user do it.
The other two third are deluded tool fetishists that are ready to suffer that their most important key is the furthest away from the home of row because "you get used to it" even if that's just an unfortunate historical accident. I would have not stuck to vim at all if not for this one trick and I suspect that's the main reason behind many dropouts
I always remap caps to ctrl because ctrl-[ is an acceptable escape key for me as I like to use other insert mode shortcuts. Eg ctrl-h, ctrl-m, ctrl-k etc.
I know some people map to escape/ctrl when held but that usually means installing something like Karabiner.
Well then you should mention it when talking about vim to non-vimmers as not to leave them in the dark with the defaults.
The question is not what solution you found to avoid the Escape key but that you did.
And even though you are probably used to your solution having the most important key in your program be a weird combo is not great imho. And you are missing out on bash/zsh/gdb and other command line vim modes.
I have mapped Caps Lock to both Ctrl and Escape simultaneously. If you just tap it it's Escape and if you hold it down it's Ctrl, and it's easy to accomplish with xcape.
unit tests are notoriously bad about testing n>2. I just ran into a problem with sorting recently that was caused by buggy comparators, but it didn't bubble up to the tests until the runtime switched to a different sort implementation. Most of the tests were doing n=2 so it was not visible under the old runtime version but was under the new one. This has been broken in production for months if not years. If the test had used n=5 I'm pretty sure the old tests would fail as well.
I don't understand what's so hard about this problem - if you have a platform that's impacted by bots and scalpers, and if you want to do the right thing, or give the appearance of doing the right thing with almost no cost to yourself or your business, you should release your product in a fair lottery with reasonable purchase limits.
You have plenty of time before the product is released to register and verify everyone. You completely avoid traffic issues. Accounting is easy - you'll sell out when you run the lottery. You'll build a reputation for releasing inventory fairly and without causing undue stress on your customers, and avoid the suspicion that you're in cahoots with the scalpers (looking at you, Ticketmaster).
I'm accustomed to stressing out over concert tickets and struggling to get gaming consoles, and have a deep hatred of scalpers and the platforms that enable them, but I had no idea that scalpers were ruining the educational/hobby markets too. That seems really low.
You'd have a lot more time to find and boot them prior to running the lottery. Assuming you didn't/couldn't detect them, at least you spare your users the anxiety and inconvenience of the on-sale while they get screwed.
I can't even begin to imagine the bubble you must live in to ascribe words like suspicion and cowardice to someone clicking a button on a forum even most software developers in the world have never even heard of.
You could try. I'd assume it was downvoted by folks who perpetuate said double-talk. If there was a defense, they'd have articulated it. But, since anonymous downvoting is easier and less risky, that's what happens. Silencing the discussion about downvotes is a meta downvote that we shouldn't accept just because it's in the guidelines.
That's only because you broke the guidelines and commented to create a generic tangent.
My edit to ask about why I was being downvoted is based on curiosity - a key pillar of this site. If people have a divergent opinion strong enough to downvote, then I would like to read it to understand more. Furthermore, my comment was not about comment voting, but about identifying and understanding that opposing position.
I out, since it seems you're just trolling on a tangent instead of commenting on the pertainate topic.
I'm trying to improve discourse by fighting against the downvote. It's my opinion it harms discourse significantly. It's low signal, and not constructive. It has an obvious chilling effect on dissent. Nothing upholds echo chambers more than the downvote.
