No LSP yet, but we do have a tree-sitter grammar

I guess this sometime replace org-mode extensively. The idea is sound. The implementation looks good.

For instance, I love org-mode export capabilities to standard formats such as pdfs and other kinds of documents. It makes it real easy to export some formulae or docs for some feature.

Plus org-mode agenda is just superior and awesome.

Actually, Wolfram Language is based on Tiny Caml. M-expression based though. Lisps are neat and cosy too.

No worries. I am schizotypy but I have suffered plenty. It's not so much better than Asperger's but I can lead an autonomous life. I could prefer to be normal but there's that. Some people use it for greatness, some suffer it for live; thing is you're not alone. Please give some time to the outward world and focus on some socials from time to time. Things will be fine.

I am schizotypy and I very much love Common Lisp but not so much Racket haha

How do you feel about Scheme ?

lisp-1 (s) give me the chills: very much prefer doubled namespaces. Though these days I focus on systems security or threat analysis. I still fondly remember the days where I could launch Emacs with sbcl and write some Montecarlo simulations on Common Lisp with electric-parens haha Those were the days of stimulating learning

That's funny, I never found doubled namespaces that interesting; what are your opinions, why do you prefer them ?

> electric parens

I get you, I was amazed by the litterature around lisps (I always found the beginning of SICP (the wizard-programmer analogy) quite inspiring and fun)

Lisp-2 virgins want to name a variable 'list' and not shadow the function named 'list', so they add on a separate function binding to each symbol. "So you have to type sharpquote if you want the function value of a symbol," they say. "What's the big deal?" Except they don't stop there: symbols also have to have package awareness and "property lists", or in other words an arbitrary number of other bindings.

Scheme chads understand that perfection is achieved not when there is nothing left to add but when there is nothing left to take away. They realize functions are nothing special, just another object that can be manipulated and operated on, so why create a separate namespace and binding for them? Why put bindings in the symbol at all, since if you are designing your language correctly bindings will vary with lexical environment? So symbols have been stripped down to just a name that the language recognizes as an identifier for a value, function, special form, or whatever else. And functions are just values that get applied whenever in head position of an eval'd list.

I jest, I jest. Seriously, I love Common Lisp, but I'm with you: Lisp-1s appeal better to my aesthetic sensibilities.

It was kind of a joke intent but it gives out to better naming position although unambiguous symbols to specify a symbol; such as #' for function names. Plus now that I remember the common Lisp ANSI specification is just awesome, free and locally installable and browsable from Emacs at symbols from ages. Common Lisp images were myriads ahead in an intospectable sense, like Smalltalk. Objects and primitives can use the built-in debugger to display their inwards. The environment is just plain astonishing, moreover ten years ago - when I started - and Emacs is free as in speech and compilable from scratch, plus org-mode is awesome as well. Nowadays I feel sorry of Python introspection capabilities although hinted typing improved it so much. Not to mention Common Lisp tight generated assembly and it's garbage collector which was ahead of its own: first with Boehm and then with parallel ones. SICP was nice although nicest was the one about gravitational physics, or brownian motions, also in Scheme. Good times.

Yes, browsing the hyperspec (what a glorious name) inside of emacs was such a joy also.

That's truly a shame scripting/glue languages took a different path than lisp, but well, you can always lisp shape anything.

Trump is widely adopted around intel services; at least in Spain.

The best advice in this common mal practice is setting as base law court your jurisdiction; the farer the better.

For instance, I am in Spain and I always signed contracts based in California, etc. Badly done! Next time I will set Madrid, Spain courts as ruling law.

This way you can sue the ass off them and make them pay the money in debt and even some more to the courts.

edit: typo

Unfortunately that will probably not do you much good. If the company is based outside of Spain all the Spanish courts can do is take their assets located in Spain which is probably nothing.

Spain is a bad example, but lots of countries have bilateral legal arrangements for this sort of thing.

As Spain is part of the EU, it should at least be good for the EU.

All assets in the EU now and for the next 1000 years.

That's an interesting statutes of limitations. 1000 years. That will outlast all governments in Europe if the past is any indicator.

Doesn't that make it easier for a California company to just ignore you?

No it just means that they need to appear in your courts via a local law firm if they want to contest.

This is good advice.

Or they can just totally ignore the lawsuit with absolutely no repercussions.

An example from my experience.

Due to one of these civil law agreements.

We attained an enforceable undertaking based on the contract here.

Then we began proceedings to convert that to whatever the same thing was over there.

Which is when the other parties legal representation decided that it was a real threat and they settled.

How will the Spanish court enforce their decision abroad? I know there are agreements between te countries, but what happens practically after a decision? Who gets activated in the US to enforce the decision?

Most courts will see a contract from anywhere and enforce it (Super Generally)

Most courts will see a contract + an enforceable undertaking from the country whose laws it was signed under and see that as roughly enforceable.

Doesnt mean always.

You can take the judgement to a US court and it will be a simplied process. As long as it is a "normal" country like spain it shouldnt be a problem (if the court was say an Iranian court it might be more difficult).

Might be a pain. If they have any EU presence, it'd be easier.

Good answer and better question: Do civil law can enforce itself without bilateral agreements initiaing a claim to a foreign court? I don't think so. Even criminal couts can't without agreement.

Without agreements you go ahead and win your local case and then hope that the contract is enforceable in their country.

Thing is torts are very similar all over the place. Like if you are a former british colony your laws are usually roughly compatible. Most countries dont have a "contract was signed overseas fuckem" law. But some do.

Tailscale looks nice. I acknowledge there is a lot of room for NAT traversal and alike tools. I am quite curious how do you manage network settings across your network. This could have served me well 10 yrs ago.

So what's the difference with io_uring?

Epoll is a readyness notification API. You tell epoll which fd's you're interested in, then you run a poll operation which blocks until at least one of the fd's you're interested in is ready. Then you separately need to do the actual IO (which is essentially just a memcpy() between kernel and user space).

In contrast io_uring is a completion notification API. You give it a buffer to read or write from/to, and it'll notify you when the IO has been completed.

Io_uring is also more flexible, and can for example be used for disk IO which epoll can't.

Makes sense. Also makes for much more efficient data polling since you get the buffer completed but not a random fd on which to perform yet another syscall.

I heartfully agree. My experience with remote working for US companies has been: 1. been hired, 2. work for 3 or 4 months, 3. the company demands a local team in your site to continue working.

Yep. Outsourcing work to other countries might be cheaper but from what I have seen there is no the same level of involvement of all parties. Much of the time both contractor and company are expendables. And yes, if you are lucky, you get to form a team and let them work for 6 months tops before client's dissolution.

Perhaps in US market startups are an attractive thing but most senior (over 30+ years) talent will prefer a solid company at least here in Europe. YMMYV