The only reason to use blender and why blender has one, is CG animation work. It would be silly to have the interface where you do exactly the same thing as in a video editor, except with the timing of animations instead of footage, but not have one for footage as well. Especially if the animation sometimes depends on when which part of the footage plays.

Rendering, exporting, importing, finding a detail is wrong, is more annoying than having it right there in the same UI.

How can I teach myself how to offer small improvements to the projects I use?

Programming in general?

Probably more that if you want to work on graphics software, you need to understand graphics programming?

That’s unfortunately very difficult. I know of no good way to do that. With specification based software, you can at least read the specification or related standard and then it flows from that how it should work. With programs that server a different, specific use case, there is a manual, and flow to things and then “things stick out”.

If there are issues, you just read a bunch of issues and read the code that they are about and get a feeling for why the issue is an issue and why the code is the way that it is.

I remember one thing I helped with for a short while, didn’t use the python “with” file writing dialogue, because the file they were writing was massive and opening it in one place, then doing a bunch of functions that wrote and appended to the file and then closing it somewhere else, was the best solution, even though it looked unclean at first.

That is true, didn’t even think to check that, thank you!

Sounds pretty neat. I would love if this was available as a built thing and I didn’t have to build myself though.

I see that requires some more explaining my thinking:

There is only demand and supply.

Previously, we had “high demand” and “limited supply” which is what lead to software dev roles being a very well paid job in silicon valley and some other places.

Now, the promise of AI, making software by itself or increasing productivity, if true, mean that supply increases. That makes software cheaper. Theoretically.

But that’s the supply side.

What you’re talking about is also a “I have so much supply, I can now afford to do projects and software I could not do before, because my time, budget, etc. was limited.” But you already had the idea and the “demand” however low priority, already existed.

What isn’t happening, is that some company sits down and suddenly decides that they need more software than they thought they needed. Even the bit that is “replacing real humans” is replacing humans. It’s meeting a demand that was already there in a new way.

Using a metaphor / example, we currently, as humanity, manage to feed ourselves. Or let’s pretend that we do and nobody is starving. Someone claiming that “the demand for food is going to go up” is talking nonsense. They can say that demand for “cheese” or “meat” or “potatoes” will go up. But not food, because that market is already saturated. Because we’re not starving.

Yes, the fact that the demand is there and that the supply gets cheaper will mean that more software will be produced.

But not because of increased demand. AI doesn’t create it’s own demand.

…at least that’s my thought process and why I wrote what I wrote in the original comment.

1. Software will be built by machines, directed by people.

2. The agentic era multiplies demand for software. As the cost of producing software collapses, demand for it will expand.

objectively insane.

Governance built into the core.

I still believe that’s not possible, but that’s only my opinion.

https://xkcd.com/1987/

Once again a nightmare of someone’s own making. The python steering council didn’t sit down and dictate that people must use all different distribution methods (in your case gcc) mixed and at once.

Money isn’t going to solve the burnout problem

In my opinion, the biggest source of burnout is actually our dayjobs.

Respectfully and meant humorously, WTF are you talking about then.

Yes money can solve it. It can solve FOSS devs needing a day job, it can solve not having enough people to do deal with FOSS related nonsense.

I’m really annoyed when people say that and somehow have “shame” when it comes to demanding, let’s say, $50 million from FANG to maintain their project. Just ask. And then because of that shame, they think “asking for money” is asking a few fellow FOSS enjoyers for $1-5 a month and then that amounts to like $3.50 and then yeah of course that won’t solve any problems.

I came ready to hate with bias because I often don’t like wrappers, but at least the .format seems like an objective improvement.

But I never understood why matplotlib insists on ax, fig and that’s still in there…

Directly working with matplotlib classes tends to be more clear and concise than pyplot, makes things easier when working with multiple figures and axes, and is certainly more “pythonic”.

I disagree.

Looks like a solid project overall! Thanks for your effort!

obsidian seems to have a maps plugin

You know [Burger chain]? Self hosting is making your own burger. Kinda similar ingredients, kinda looking product overall, it’s still a burger.

But you’re in control.

My problem wtih the existing linux phones is that they are usually clearly labled as “experimental beta device + OS, only recommended for experienced users” and for linux, that’s scary to me. I’ve been using it for over 10 years, but as a user, you know?

The big problem with this is that I don’t like android.

It works relatively well, it’s support is ok, it’s probably better than apple because their garden walls are higher. But it’s not at all the operating system I would like to have. It’s already too restrictive, I have not seen/found good app building docs that make it actually easy and convenient to create “apps” and that massively rubs me the wrong way.

With that move, google is enshittfying android, but that doesn’t mean we have to resist the enshittification and keep android, we can also let them do it and move to something else. In theory, anyway.

So I’d like to see more calls for different OS, forks or stuff like

https://www.fsf.org/news/librephone-project

a more boilerplate way to remove having to worry about designing the UI/UX so I could focus on [blank]

Yes.

In a way, it is super funny ironic / funny to me that we have basically no actual GUI standard. There is Qt, there is stuff with html/css/js, and the rest just lack tons of features.

No idea how it works on windows tbh.

Making a cli app? Sure, easy peasy, done in 5 mintues. Making a small GUI app? Strap in for 2 weeks of basics how this framework chose to solve certain issues. It’s funny from that point of view.

Having an easy on the eyes markdown that is also easy to parse would be cool.

But YAML does these things:

https://ruudvanasseldonk.com/2023/01/11/the-yaml-document-from-hell

which are not excusable, for any reason.

I’m not sure now that I think about it, but I find this more explicit and somehow more free than json. Which can’t be true, since you can just

{"anything you want":{...}}

But still, this:

<my_custom_tag>
<this> 
<that>
<roflmao>
...

is all valid.

You can more closely approximate the logical structure of whatever you’re doing without leaving the internal logic of the… syntax?

<car>
<tyre> air, <valve>closed</valve>  </tyre>
<tyre> air, <valve>closed</valve>  </tyre>
<tyre>      <valve>open</valve>  </tyre>
<tyre> air, <valve>closed</valve>  </tyre>
</car>

Maybe I just like the idea of a closing tag being very specific about what it is that is being closed (?). I guess I’m really not sure, but it does feel nicer to my brain to have starting and closing tags and distinguishing between what is structure, what is data, what is inside where.

My peeve with json is that… it doesn’t properly distinguish between strings that happen to be a number and “numbers” resulting in:

myinput = {"1":"Hello",1:"Hello"}
tempjson = json.dumps(myinput)
output = json.loads(tempjson)
print(output)
>>>{'1': 'Hello'}

in python.

I actually don’t like the attributes in xml, I think it would be better if it was mandatory that they were also just more tagged elements inside the others, and that the “validity” of a piece of xml being a certain object would depend entirely on parsing correctly or not.

I particularly hate the idea of attributes in svg, and even more particularly the way they defined paths.

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/SVG/Tutorial/Paths#curve_commands

It works, but I consider that truly ugly. And also I don’t understand because it would have been trivial to do something like this:

<path><element>data</element><element>data</element></path>

It is very cool, specifically as a human readable mark down / data format.

The fact that you can make anything a tag and it’s going to be valid and you can nest stuff, is amazing.

But with a niche use case.

Clearly the tags waste space if you’re actually saving them all the time.

Good format to compress though…

No.

https://www.sovereigntechfund.de/programs/applications#requirements

Take a look.

Though, if you have not heard of the program before, you’re probably not involved with a project that qualifies.

No.

You know how boxers don’t beat up their trainers?

This is like that.