Anyway, I wouldn't say it currently behaves nicely (like something I would like to reuse anywhere whatsoever). Tested on Firefox opening Bookmarks on the left. First off, there is this ugly flicker, as browser first renders the "wrong" version, then your JS "fixes" it. Second, there is some concurrency problem, as by opening and closing Bookmarks repeatedly I somehow managed to render both versions: centered to viewport and covered by sidebar.

And, yeah, as others have said, I also think that allowing sidebar to cover your webpage content is absolutely bogus and don't foresee myself wanting this behavior, ever. But that's up to you.

It starts with the premise of "C/C++ have pretty fucked up type systems, and look how much nicer integer type names are in Rust" and also that we should use unsigned integers as the first approximation if we are trying to model ℕ. Was I supposed to disagree with that? It didn't seem like the author was arguing against them, and they seem like pretty trivial, obviously true statements.

Then it starts to talk about how we cannot properly use unsigned in C/C++, because it's fucked up, and it cannot be fixed properly because the proper handling of integers is too expensive. This all sounds sadly familiar and we are nodding and saying: "Well, such is life." But at least we still have Rust, that doesn't suffer from the same inherent UB curse, right? I mean, I'm not deep enough into the details of current compiler implementation, but I've got the impression that the described problems don't apply to Rust. All good then? (edit: obviously, except for the fact that we still allow wrapping in prod builds, because it's expensive not to. But we all knew this already.)

Then it follows up with some pretty contrived (IMO) example of how we cannot mindlessly swap int with uint (obviously? I mean, you basically explicitly check for `i == -1` in this example), framing is as "uint is unintuitve". Was it supposed to be a strawman? It surely is a strawman, but the author doesn't argue against it.

And then a couple more of statements to the support of Stroustrup's "just use signed" (in C/C++), which also don't seem to apply to (saner) Rusts choices.

And then it ends w/o a conclusion. So, what was the conclusion supposed to be, please? I really don't understand what the author tried to convey.

As for pills, yes, there is about every form of creatine supplement now, even chewing gum, but this is just dumb, how much of creatine do you think you can consume this way in a day?

(TL;DR: we won't.)

However, my understanding is that Coros just doesn't have an SDK. At all. So it's not really "lagging on features", it's a totally closed platform, that doesn't any have 3rd party apps at all, and will not have them, because it's impossible to write them. I don't know if it's enough of a reason to completely write them off as a competitor, but that does give me a pause. I mean, if I don't have a feature on Garmin, I can theoretically implement it myself, or even hope that somebody else did. If I don't have it on Coros, I will just have to make do.

Complete bullshit. Might as well say "scary screwdriver that can turn up in your recturm if you so much as sneeze". Sure, I believe that might have happened to you (heard stories from friends that work in the emergency room), but I run rebase -i 10 times during the time I work on each branch (literally: I don't even care to write "proper" commit messages while writing the code, will reorganize and clean them up later anyway), and it never happened to me.

I really don't feel like I can affect anything at all. First of all, even if we assume for the sake of argument that voting for MEPs is important, it's really hard to judge what you are voting for. It's not like they come with clear agendas that people carefully evaluate before they decide how to vote. It's a long running joke how USA elections are choosing between "a giant douche and a turd sandwich", and whatever you choose doesn't even matter because they won't keep their promises, but, hey, at least everyone knows their promises. This one is blue, that one is red, both will let you down in the end, but you kinda know what their general vibe is. Voting for MEPs on the other hand — they are all kinda grey and I couldn't tell you how'd they vote on this particular issue. Depends on your country, but in my case many of them simply weren't MEPs on 2023 vote. And I'm kinda surprised by some of the choices.

Second, I don't really feel that MEPs are that important. They impact almost nothing. All real work is done behind the closed doors by some unknown people, and half of them all happen to be Maltese for some reason (0.1% of EU population, by the way). Parliament in the majority of cases just votes "for all good things and against all bad things" and the actual things that will come to haunt us are usually some small details in the Appendix that were never even explicitly put on the vote.

And when MEP's vote does matter, well, we get something like in this case. The majority objected, but that doesn't matter.

By the way, a couple of years ago I was asking myself, how could it be that we choose von der Leyen to be the President of EC? Well, I don't think we ever did. I surely didn't. MEPs barely did. Never once in all of the history EP rejected a candidate proposed by Council. Whatever each member of the Council did we'll never know, this is not disclosed. And to add the cherry on top, in this particular case it was a record number of MEPs who actually voted against her. It doesn't matter. Here we all are.