Nonsense. Don't you know how bubbles work? Everyone does massive rushes for all the low hanging and medium hanging fruit. The the bubble pops and the randomized carnage of companies big and small being destroyed is sifted through by the next wave of companies actually intended to make money.
The good ideas and the bad ideas don't signal success in a bubble, nor does making money or not. Its random and any notion of "this was a good business model and that was bad" is post-hoc rationalization. The number of people who make fun of pets.com but order from chewy.com is a prime example of this.
While this comment is overly general (some major editors ship without LSP support built in; many more do not have a sane configuration out-of-the-box), it is useful to learn about them and how your editor of choice integrates with them.
The landscape isn't generally intuitive, unfortunately, and while it's getting better, understanding the differences and interop places between LSP, Treesitter, DAP, your editor, and the underlying language-specific tooling can be a big, confusing time hog.
That said, and to be clear: LSP's been a huge boon for me. I used a minimal, kinda-broken configuration for a while with Python, then rebuilt the whole thing when I switched to Rust for work, and holy hell, this thing's awesome.
You are a craftsman, learn your tools. Could you imagine the equivalent from other professionals? A machinist saying, "Understanding the differences and interop places between the DRO, hand controls, and CNC controls for the lathe can be a big confusing time hog."
It takes a couple of hours, and it's a tool you use every single day. Learning how it works is the price of entry, not a mountain to overcome.
It is a fact that some useful things in the software world are a pain in the ass to learn, and that they could be better on that front.
LSP is one of those things, or at least it has been, for a while.
LSP is also something that's not necessary to writing quality code; it's absolutely a major quality-of-life boost, but before rewriting my configs after switching to Rust, my LSP usage was limited to being a slightly faster autocomplete engine more than anything. I didn't have keybinds set up for going to definitions, implementations, or references of symbols. I still put out what I think was decent code. I'm also better off now that I've adopted a more useful config.
IMO it's an important part of this industry (among others) to let developers have whatever workflow they want, within reason. If someone decides they want to invest the time into setting up LSP with their editor, that's their prerogative. If not, that's fine too. I don't know who among my present or past coworkers use LSP outside of occasionally chatting about editor configs with one or two of them, because they've usually figured out a workflow that lets them produce respectable code, and I've never had to question their tooling before questioning their methodology.
The context is a user adopting an editor that has LSP integration and is relying on the language server. That's why I said "it's a tool you use every single day".
If your tool is TextMate, you should learn how TextMate grammars work. If your tool is vi, you should learn how modal editing works. If your tool is Ed, you don't need to learn anything because "Ed is the standard text editor".[1]
To be fair, vi has got its dose of "modal editing is difficult to learn" criticism for years. Why shouldn't zed receive the same treatment if configuring LSP is a pain point for many newcomers?
Because the bar is low and part of the craftsman's job is to learn their tools. If everyone who wanted to use a computer needed to learn how language servers work, that would be a problem.
A programmer having to learn how language servers work isn't a pain point, it's their job. It takes a couple hours to learn. A couple hours to learn how to do part of your job isn't notable. Complaining about learning how to do one's job makes one unqualified.
The only craftsmen are the ones at the edge of the lingo tree?
To use your own analogy, as a machinist myself : I can master the concept of the lathe and bow drill without learning simulation-driven CAM, and I would be no less a machinist than the guy pressing buttons on a brand new Haas.
If you work via notepad.exe and assembly with a compiler and linker ready in the next window, fine! the work is what matters.
It stops at the tools you use, "it's a tool you use every single day". If it's not a tool you use every day, you don't need to learn it.
If you don't use language servers, you don't engage with development environments which rely on them, you need not learn them.
If you're making chips on a Monarch 60 you don't need to learn shit about CNC. If you're pushing buttons on a Haas you do.
If you're coming from a Monarch and want to try pushing buttons on the Haas on the kids are using, you need to learn how CNC works. That's your job. If you want to switch from notepad to Zed, you need to learn how language servers work.
If you do not understand how the underlying language server is configured, what the input and outputs are, how it operates, you will run into errors you are unequipped to deal with.
Some languages are more severe than others on this. For example, in C++ your editor is not going to be able to make efficient use of the clangd language server without intervention from the programmer to understand and configure it. On the other hand, for Python the Pyright LS will be mostly fine without additional configuration.
I only had to silence a couple of unneeded warnings specific to codebase I was working with, which took under five minutes and that only because I finally got annoyed enough. Otherwise it took zero configuration (this was Kate though, but it doesn't matter, there is no clangd-specific default config there).
The compilation database[1] given to clangd needs to be complete, understood by the clangd argument parser, and capable of producing a build.
This starts to hurt bad when the compiler producing the build is not clang. If you try to use a compile database describing C++20 module compile lines for GCC, clangd will choke badly. If you're using MSVC flags that clang-cl hasn't been taught yet, clangd falls over. If you're using CMake to produce the compile database, it will leave out synthetic targets from the database and you will see errors because clangd cannot find the interfaces described by those targets. If you're not using CMake you need to configure bear or ninja or whatever to produce a compilation database for you. Etc, etc.
Net zero. But not effectively zero. They sell energy during the day when no one needs it and buy it an night when we all need it. If we all switched to solar and heat pumps there would be blackouts and an energy crisis
If no one needs it during the day, they can't sell it. That's not how markets work. Energy that is generated, needs to be consumed or else the grid breaks down. These two facts together mean, that the energy they sell is needed and used. Albeit they could generate and sell even more energy, if the energy could be stored or if the load could be shaped accordingly. The latter is a great way to lower energy costs.
Energy consumption during the night is low. So low, that night time electricity prices, which are lower than the daytime prices, are still a thing.
Heat pumps are an opportunity for load shaping. Buildings can be heated, when electricity is abundant and heated a few degree over the target temperature, if needed. The heat is stored inside the building and needs less heating during the night. That works quite well, especially here in Europe were buildings generally have good insulation and are made of brick, which can store a lot of heat.
Solar generates like 1/10 in the northern countries for half of the year. No batteries currently can solve this.
The problem with global ecological regulations is they never differentiate between countries on the equator or 30th parallel with countries around 60. They expect everyone to only run on sun and wind. It isn't possible. There has to be at least nuclear which is ridiculously expensive.
It's generally not an easy problem to solve otherwise it wouldn't be a problem anymore.
First sensible thing to do is to relax the expectations for countries like Poland that have no good way to compete with other countries energy wise because of geographical location that noone chooses.
It is extremely unfair to treat everyone the same even though every country has different energy resources.
There's a solution that costs less than fossil fuels, but it's a coordination problem and the USA is structurally unable to solve those anymore. I guess the Soviet Union wins the last laugh?
Because the sun doesn't shine every day. Where I live, the sky is overcast 90% of the time in the winter. You can't charge the batteries during the summer and run them all winter.
They've fallen victim to a catastrophically easy scare tactic, unfortunately. "The sun only shines during the day therefore solar is bad!" Dumb, but easy.
In Toronto there is only daylight for 9 hours in winter
Yes surely some days are cloudy
So some days you get 5% capacity factor, and need some other energy source as well
So it harms the economics of the venture
Look at the profitability of companies building utility scale solar farms, they cost 100 million and the company hopes to get a 10% return and pay a 3% dividend.
They still have to contend with moving parts for tracking the angle of the sun, fans on inverters, contactors, clearing snow, mowing grass, site drainage, tornadoes etc, so sometimes it is not as easy as it sounds
All for a 7%? Why shouldn’t they just buy the s&p 500 and call it a day
I had a 20kWh array and 18kWh of batteries in Texas and it was GREAT in the summer. It'd start charging by 6am and be charged by 9am, even with simultaneous usage. Then we'd live off solar for the day (even with HVAC), go back on batteries around 9pm and they'd be out around 4am. No problem.
But during an overcast winter day, the stack wouldn't get power until 8/9, not make it to 50%, start discharging by 4/5pm, and be out by 10/11pm. It would easily be 8-10 hours where we were wholly dependent on the grid.
Not a problem, just a constraint to acknowledge and plan for.
To be fair, though, electricity is usually cheaper at night. So discharging solar charged batteries well into the evening is still a net benefit for the grid (and your wallet).
So then they are wrong. The last 5-10 percent is the hardest part and it's the one consumers complain the most about! You can't run a factory on 90% power availability
The issue is that to achieve that you can't just build 90% solar plus 10% fossil fuels. You would need to build 100% solar + 100% fossil fuels for the 10% of the time solar doesn't work.
If you build batteries on the scale that the article suggests (and is probably going to happen in the real future) you can use batteries charged from fossil fuels.
It's a few percent dirtier (round trip losses) but in return you can use gas plants that are 50% more efficient to charge them rather than run peaker plants.
And of course that's ignoring wind which is nearly as cheap as solar and anti-correlated with it.
That's fair, batteries are somewhat useful for peaking even in a world powered 100% by fossil fuels so there's some infrastructure that can be shared. And even on a cloudy day solar output isn't 0%. But I'm skeptical the overlap here is significant enough to invalidate my basic point, though I admit it's a big simplification.
Reality is extremely complicated, so realistically the exact mix of solar + fossil fuels that makes sense is going to depend on a huge number of factors and vary from region to region depending on weather, fuel costs, construction costs, transmission costs, and probably a thousand other things I haven't thought of. The best thing to do is stay out of the way of both industries and let the market sort all of that complexity out.
I would speculate the result of that is going to be a lot more renewables than currently exist, mainly due to the drastic reduction in the cost of solar and batteries that has been occurring over the last few decades, but I don't think it'll be 100% or even 90% renewables either (expect perhaps in the extremely long term). Time will tell.
It helps that the cost of a simple cycle gas turbine power plant (before the recent data center demand spike) is around $600/kW, maybe a factor of 20 cheaper per kW than a nuclear power plant. So backing up the whole grid with such generators wouldn't be that expensive.
Yes, but if you need to have all that infrastructure anyway it no longer makes sense to compare the cost of solar+batteries with the cost of fossil fuels because you actually need to have both.
If you compare the total cost of solar with just the fuel cost of fossil fuels (ignoring its CapEx and non-fuel OpEx) that swings the equation a lot.
Infrastructure cost for 100% is the same as infrastructure cost for 10%? That's not true. The distribution network is the part that can't be scaled, but it can also be reused for either source, so it doesn't double in cost.
No, I'm saying infrastructure cost for 100% is the same as infrastructure cost for 100%. You can't build 10% as much fossil fuel infrastructure and expect it to carry 100% of the load when solar isn't working. And obviously I'm talking about generation here, not distribution.
That's not carbon neutral. You can use synthetic fuels to make it fully carbon neutral (way easier to store than the often-proposed H2) but that's really just another battery.
The US is the largest oil producer, but also still one of the largest oil importers, and oil prices are set by a global market, so the phrase "energy independent" is at best an accounting trick.
The only way we can get truly energy independent is by electrifying most non fossil fuel requiring end uses and supplying that electricity with renewables or nuclear (from domestically sourced uranium) - basically the direction China is going.
Then we could perhaps decouple a bit from the global oil market assuming our domestic supplies could be channeled towards things like plastics and jet fuel that are hard to replace.
Otherwise we are stuck with the global oil market and its price risks. Reducing animal protection in the Gulf won't change that because US oil producers won't drill unless the can sell at the global oil price.
Why would an oil company go through the trouble (and expense) of oil exploration and extraction if they don't have the right to sell it to the highest bidder anywhere in the world?
Many of those cancers are not harmful or would be killed ok their own. And the cost of diagnosis on the patient is not free either. It causes lots of anxiety and stress which also cause large negative health effects too. Over diagnosis is real and also bad. Medical stuff is just really hard
No, I check account history when the text is obviously LLM-generated. I mostly point it out because if I don't make it abundantly clear how obvious the spambot is by its behaviour, I will get people telling me that it could totally be a human and that I'm making a false accusation.
reply