I am thinking to make the following tool, but wanted to get opinions before I embark on this journey.

The tool builds container images.

The images are optionally distroless: meaning, they do not include an entire distro. They only include the application(s) you specify and its dependencies.

What else does the tool give you?

• the build tool uses a package manager to do dependency resolution, so you don't have to manually resolve them like many docker files do. (NOTE: The package manager is not installed on the container image. It is only used by the build tool)
• uses gentoo's portage to build the software from source (if not previously cached). This is helpful when you're using versions of software that aren't built against each other in the repos you download from
• allows specifying compile flag customizations per package.
• makes use of gentoo's existing library of package build or install recipes, so that you only have to write them for uncommon apps rather than in every docker file.

I find it crazy that so many dockerfiles are doing their own dependency resolution when we already have package managers.

What do you think? Is this tool useful or am I missing a reason why it wouldn't be?

This instance performs spectacularly. Admin is always on top of everything. No drama, and I have high confidence that this instance won't disappear without notice.

Our admin does not get enough appreciation, so big shoutout and thanks for your hard work ❤

I understand that nvidia support for wayland is lacking, but I know it's possible.

For context, I was using sway 1.8 for a while (no official support for nvidia). It was working almost perfectly, only minor issues. After the update to 1.9, I get constant flickering.

I can downgrade to 1.8, but the fact that 1.8 was working tells me that it is possible for a window manager to work well for nvidia. The problem is the sway team does not want that headache (understandably so).

Are there any alternatives that work well with nvidia?

Bspwm has many appeals, and I do not want to focus on those. I want to focus on binary-tree separation of windows and its benefits vs alternatives. What's the appeal?

For comparison, Sway and i3 allow for the v-split and h-split layout, so you can have 2 or more windows split side by side. You can nest them, so it is sort of an n-ary tree. It feels a lot more powerful.

So why the binary tree? The others seem richer and more capable. Bspwm is marketed as more powerful than i3 but it seems the other way around?

I am looking to program something similar to a simulation game, but free-form in its customization and scripting to the point where no strategy game will get me close enough.

I initially thought to start from scratch, simulating all the basics. Simulating money, people, resources, maps, etc. Obviously this is very ambitious.

Are there any libraries or frameworks that could help me with this? I don't want something opinionated that decides the model for how to simulate, for example, money or a person. I want to preserve the ability to simulate those with the models and math of my choosing. But maybe a library that has the foundations of simulation in general, so that I don't have to build everything completely from scratch?

I understand what I said sounds very vague. This will be something I will discover as I do more of it, so forgive the vagueness.

I am building an application that is using JSON / XML files to persist data. This is why I indicated "outside of SQL" in the title.

I understand one benefit of join tables is it makes querying easier with SQL syntax. Since I am using JSON as my storage, I do not have that benefit.

But are there any other benefits when using a separate join table when expressing a many-to-many relationship? The exact expression I want to express is one entity's dependency on another. I could do this by just having a "dependencies" field, which would be an array of the IDs of the dependencies.

This approach seems simpler to me than a separate table / entity to track the relation. Am I missing something?

Feel free to ask for more context.

I like tasks.org but unfortunately it doesn't look like this will come any time soon.

Plus points:

• if the task can be assigned to multiple sub-lists (or projects, buckets, etc).

I want a to-do list app that syncs from a json file (or other human-readable data format), so that I can view and modify the file (via a CLI like jq) from my computer too, and it would still reflect on my phone when it syncs.

Does this exist? Preferably it uses a format simple enough that makes it possible / easy to modify it via jq.

In the desktop world, we have the option to use the command line: a uniform interface for a multitude of apps that would otherwise be very different when implemented as GUIs.

Using the same interface, I can move or edit files, cross out tasks on my to-do list, retrieve my password for my email account (using Bitwarden or pass), etc. All in the command line. The GUI for each of those are wildly different.

The other benefit is it is very easy to create a new command line app, as opposed to a GUI.

Is anything like this possible for the smartphone world (even if it doesn't or will never exist)? What would it look like?

Since smartphone typing is much slower, we can't simply reuse the command line. We'd need something different. An interface that can still support a various spectrum of different operations, yet ergonomic for a smartphone. What are your thoughts?

While reading Sipser's book on theory of computation, it relies heavily on the concept of formal language, and machines that merely accept or reject an input.

But most useful programs we deal with do more than merely verify an input. They compute something. We may compute a solution for an equation instead of merely verify it. We may sum a list of numbers, or calculate some function on it.

Maybe "most" is an exaggeration since I can't prove it. But still, it begs the question. Why not deal with machines than do more than merely verify?

Apologies if the title is confusing, but I couldn't think of better phrasing in short text.

Whenever we define / specify a certain automaton (such as a finite state machine or a turing machine) by defining all of its States, transition function, etc., this feels awfully similar to defining an algorithm. For example, I can define a machine that can tell if a number is divisible by 3. It is very similar to writing an algorithm and the steps to solving the problem.

Now I understand that the two aren't exactly equivalent. But would it be incorrect to say that the specification of a machine is a type of algorithm, since we're defining the steps it takes to solve a problem (how to respond to a specific state or input to solve a specific problem)?

I've been looking at best buy. Are there any other sites to look on?

Budget: targeting $900, can go up to $1000 Specs:

• 3060 or 4060 and up
• decent build and ergonomics
• good battery
• 16 GB RAM
• 6 core / 12 thread CPU
• good screen