Granted, this data is usually "boring" by today’s dopamine-driven attention standards, so it's no wonder people rarely talk about it. But if you actually stop and take an interest in what has been accomplished, you start noticing the impact everywhere—it just takes a little effort. After all, how hyped can you really get over a repaved road in some remote village you've never even heard of? You can't. But the people living there certainly feel the impact, even if they don't always notice where the money came from.

Go search for maps provided by EU or your government sites, for instance https://mapadotacji.gov.pl/?lang=en

You might disagree with certain aspects of the EU, but leaving a rage-baited, hateful comment is the easy way out. Looking at actual accomplishments—despite your frustrations—takes real effort.

For stuff which actually can matter and had impact on daily lives (beside aforementioned public transport impact):

  - USB-C as a standard power connector
  - hassle-free travel between countries
  - GDPR you mentioned
  - recent "stop killing games" public initiative which shows that common people can stand a chance against multimillion dollar companies
  - abolition of roaming charges and access to a free internet up to certain limits — huge PITA solved for people going on vacations  
  - universal healthcare between countries on vacations  
  - strong 14 day guarantee for online purchases, free return policies and minimum 2 year warranty  
  - food safety regulations (but if you don't care you won't be impressed by it)  
  - certain regulations regarding flights and passenger rights (cancellation compensation, recent regulations regarding baggage, to fight with scammy practices of flight operators)   
  - right to repair 
  - even the commonly memed bottle caps is nice UX — you (or more commonly a kid) won't be able to drop a cap on sand rendering :) And thanks to that there is noticeably less "small trash" on beaches and in parks (left to solve are beer caps ;)

If a ray carries full spectral information, then a transparent material can be described by its absorption spectrum — similar to how elements absorb specific wavelengths of light, as shown here: https://science.nasa.gov/asset/webb/types-of-spectra-continu...

In that view, transparency is just wavelength-by-wavelength attenuation. Each material applies its own absorption/transmission function to the incoming spectrum. Because this is done pointwise in the spectral domain, the order doesn’t matter:

OUT = IN × T₁ × T₂ (or in a subtractive representation: OUT = IN − ABS₁ − ABS₂).

So whether one material reduces 50% of the red first and another reduces 50% of the green second or vice verse doesn’t change the result. Each wavelength is handled independently, making the operation order-independent.

Without tools in mainstream editors I don't see how it can push us forward instead of saying a niche barely anyone knows about.

* [Difftastic](https://difftastic.wilfred.me.uk/) — my go-to diff tool for years * [Nu shell](https://www.nushell.sh/) — a promising idea, but still lacking in design/implementation maturity

What I’d really like to see is a *viable projectional editor* and a broader shift from text-centric to data-centric tools.

The issue is that nearly everything we use today (editors, IDEs, coreutils) is built around text, and there’s no agreed-upon data interchange format. There have been attempts (Unison, JetBrains MCP, Nu shell), but none have gained real traction.

Rare “miracles” like the C++ --> Rust migration show paradigm shifts can happen. But a text → projectional transition would be even bigger. For that to succeed, someone influential would need to offer a *clear, opt-in migration path* where:

* some people stick with text-based tools, * others move to semantic model editing, * and both can interoperate in the same codebase.

What would be needed:

* Robust, data-native alternatives to [coreutils](https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Core_utilities) operating directly on structured data (avoid serialize ↔ parse boundaries). Learn from Nushell’s mistakes, and aim for future-compatible, stable, battle-tested tools. * A more declarative-first mindset. * Strong theoretical foundations for the new paradigm. * Seamless conversion between text-based and semantic models. * New tools that work with mainstream languages (not niche reinventions), and enforce correctness at construction time (no invalid programs). * Integration of semantic model with existing version control systems * Shared standards for semantic models across languages/tools (something on the scale of MCP or LSP — JetBrains’ are better, but LSP won thanks to Microsoft’s push). * Dual compatibility in existing editors/IDEs (e.g. VSCode supporting both text files and semantic models). * Integrate knowledge across many different projects to distill the best way forward -> for example learn from Roslyn's semantic vs syntax model, look into tree sitter, check how difftastic does tree diffing, find tree regex engines, learn from S-expressions and LISP like languages, check unison, adopt helix editor/vim editing model, see how it can eb integrated with LSP and MCP etc.

This isn’t something you can brute-force — it needs careful planning and design before implementation. The train started on text rails and won’t stop, so the only way forward is to *build an alternative track* and make switching both gradual and worthwhile. Unfortunately it is pretty impossible to do for an entity without enough influence.

If not depending on AI tools then depending on a... hunch? So like a modern-era witch hunting?

"Banning LLM content" is in my opinion an effort spent on the wrong thing. If you want to ensure the quality of the code, you should focus on ensuring the code review and merge process is more thorough in filtering out subpar contributions effectively, instead of wasting time on trying to enforce unenforceable policies. They only give a false sense of trust and security. Would "[x] I solemnly swear I didn't use AI" checkbox give anything more than a false sense of security? Cheaters gonna cheat, and trusting them would be naive, politely said...

Spam... yeah, that is a valid concern, but it's also something that should be solved on organizational level.