could you give me a link on how it's done? I looked into this extensively and there was no way to bundle an .exe . It was a 2-3 years ago so maybe things have changed
EDIT: I see now that you already know jpackage, but you don't want an installer. In that case you can use launch4j, which just wraps a jar in an exe: https://launch4j.sourceforge.net/
okay, Launch4j is new to me - but this seems to only work for Windows
I find the whole situation a bit silly, bc obviously it's creating an executable under the hood somewhere. The official tools just don't expose it to you.
I think what I could do is to run the installers on all target systems and then pull out the executables manually. I just think that'd be a bit difficult/annoying to make as part of a CI system
I only used Launch4j on Windows, but in the downloads you can find Linux and MacOS versions as well. At the bottom of the webpage it explains that it can be built on even more platforms, if you have MinGW binutils 2.22 (windres and ld only) on those platforms.
If I remember correctly, you can't just pull out the exe created by jpackage, because it doesn't contain the runtime. The installer installs both the runtime and the exe. The exe created by Launch4j also doesn't include the runtime, but Launch4j is better at finding a system-wide runtime, and can direct the user to a specific download site (such as adoptium.net) instead of java.com. If you want to have JUST a single exe, then I think GraalVM's native image is the only option.
Hmmm，yeah I should really just try GraalVM. JavaFX finally supports it. I just remmeber it was a bit unclear how to hook it up with Clojure/deps.edn but I'm sure the tooling has evolved since I last looked
Some day they'll integrate cosmopolitan builds with Graal native and we'll come full circle to cross-platform executables haha
Well, capital loss carryover needs an inflation index in a bad way anyway. It was introduced into the tax code 45 years ago and it hasn't changed since. There was a proposal a year ago to bump it to $13,000 and index it to inflation but apparently did not get the necessary votes.
> I find it absurd that the government can take your home AT ALL after you have spent your whole life paying for it.
They can, but IIRC the Supreme Court just ruled that they have to give you the proceeds from the sale minus whatever lien value they had on the property.
Not that I necessarily disagree with your sentiment, but the situation isn't quite as dire as the statement makes it appear to be.
Maybe on the planet Krypton where you live and everyone is like Superman you can get a steel front end to bend around you when it hits you, but here on earth hitting a person with that blunt front end is like taking a sledgehammer to a water balloon with about the same effect.
> That model doesn’t really work to fund higher education. The public won’t accept doubling or tripling their property tax.
[citation needed]
And I can give you a citation against. In my local municipality the tax base is roughly $1.5 billion. The annual expenditures for the local vo-tech school for that municipality is $30 million. If all of the state and tuition funding for the vo-tech school suddenly vanished the property owners would see a rise of ... wait for it ... a grand total of 2%. Certainly a far cry from the doubling or tripling you suggested.
Amortizing the tuition across all public post-secondary institutions in the state via income and property tax bases of the entire state would likely be somewhere in the neighborhood of 1-2% total every year. Based on that analysis it seems monumentally stupid to NOT publicly fund post-secondary education.
Ditch the NCAA sports programs and it probably gets cheaper. The whole sales pitch for sports is that scholarships provide a pathway for some students to go to college that otherwise could not afford it. Get rid of tuition and suddenly that reason goes away, too.
Colleges/Universities absolutely do not need more money...they need more accountability.
I'm not arguing with your numbers, I guess my point is that I don't think taxpayers will accept a huge "freebie" for one group which results in their taxes going up. The optics are terrible.
Having watched a close friend of my dad's sell at the bottom in 2007-2008 after he had retired, I understand your sentiment.
However, before the advent of discount brokerages and widespread 401(k) plans investing really was only for the extremely wealthy and inept fund management - resulting in extremely high expense ratios - was rampant. Now investment is more accessible and ETFs are offering near-zero (or actually zero (!) - see FNILX) expense ratios on the strength of the economy, which has been a net win for a larger segment of the population than the 0.1%. We're up to 20% now!
I would like to see a much larger percentage of the population to be able to get in on this opportunity. Doing away with wealth and income inequality will get us halfway there. Trust-managed investing addresses what you're asking for, where a company manages your investments and retirements for you at some level of expense ratio. (These companies exist today for retirees.)
Apple Watch is probably < 1% of a market dominated by Garmin, Polar, and Suunto, so it doesn't make much financial sense to integrate with GymKit.
Apple falls to Garmin in two areas: battery life and software. Sleep affects recovery, so planting a watch on a charger every night is a non-starter. Garmin's performance analysis software is also years ahead of Apple's. Apple could fix both of those things but that would require investment which I'm not sure they are willing to make.
> Apple Watch is probably < 1% of a market dominated by Garmin, Polar, and Suunto, so it doesn't make much financial sense to integrate with GymKit.
Well, maybe (though I highly doubt it is 1% of the runner market) but it is by far the biggest player in smart watches generally now, and they are quickly eroding the feature advantage gap with those other brands. And most of the users of the brands you mentioned are serious runners whereas the average person walking into a gym bought their smart watch for a broader set of reasons than a serious runner buying a Garmin. It would make sense for a manufacturer of equipment to appeal to the average person walking into a gym.
> Apple falls to Garmin in two areas: battery life and software. Sleep affects recovery, so planting a watch on a charger every night is a non-starter. Garmin's performance analysis software is also years ahead of Apple's. Apple could fix both of those things but that would require investment which I'm not sure they are willing to make.
I wear mine all night and get the sleep info. I plop it on the charger while I shower and eat breakfast and it is full by the time I am ready to start my day.
Do you happen to know how Garmin compares to Fitbit in terms of performance analysis? Fitbit made some changes that I'm unhappy with and they refuse to offer us a way out. I'm thinking of talking to Santa Clause about this.
I’ve not used a Fitbit since the first version they released, I continue to be a huge Garmin fanboy though. I’m very happy with my Fenix 5, though I’m semi-regularly tempted to upgrade to a newer one for the “body battery” feature which uses training load, intensity, sleep, and other stuff to work out a more accurate recovery efficiency between activities. I also use a mix of Strava and Garmin Connect for various other analysis things. Which I guess is part of the appeal, they’re pretty open with the data integrations so you might be able to put your data into something else if you need more specific performance analysis.
Honestly the only complaints I have with my Garmin is the best kind of complaint to have: they last so long. My previous forerunner I had for 12 years. This Fenix must be close to 5 already. I keep looking at these new ones and I just can’t justify it. Battery life is still many days, features are still great. It’s just an absolutely rock solid watch that doesn’t actually need to be upgraded. Which is ultimately why I chose a Garmin instead of an Apple Watch last time - I didn’t want another Apple device that might be on a 3 year upgrade cycle.
My solution to the Apple Watch charging problem is to start charging it as the first step of my bedtime routine, and put it back on my wrist as the last step. This works because it takes about 45 minutes to charge.
Which is stupid. If I shouldn't expect returns on my investments to beat inflation why would I bother investing in equities? By that metric I should put all of my money in TIPS and be done with it.
