1/ One of the most peculiar things about Emacs is how you can spend ages (literally years) not using a feature - sometimes not even knowing about its existence - and then suddenly having your life change when you find it. org-mode agenda is one of those features.
2/ I've been using Emacs for time management for maybe a decade now, and I can honestly say I would not have made it through the PhD without it. Its such a long winded, uncertain effort over a long period of time that without some form of organisation I would have just got lost.
3/ Emacs has enabled me to keep close tabs on all the work carried out, to subdivide it as and when things change, with absolutely minimal fuss. I had been using things such as GitHub issues, Jira, etc etc for decades and always found them to be a pain. org-mode is just seamless.
4/ And of course, with minimal effort you can also plot nice graphs. What I like about it is how little effort it required from my part. I had tried other forms of time management and gave up, because I just can't be bothered to context-switch when I am in the thick of it.
5/ Anyways, to cut a very long story short, my life is now managed by org-mode and I feel much happier about it. However, what I never thought about doing - and really, don't ask me why I didn't - is to using org-mode agenda. Maybe its because PhD work is all under your control.
6/ However, at work you have deadlines, meetings, and a constant stream of events coming at you. And I suddenly - wouldn't it be nice if that was integrated with my nice, seamless time management system. And, of course, it being Emacs, there is a solution: org-mode agenda.
7/ I've been using it for a few weeks, and honestly, I don't know how I was able to live all this time without it :-D Here's a good intro (screenshot from that post) blog.aaronbieber.com/2016/09/24/an-…
8/ I think this is one of the reasons why many people end up "living" inside of Emacs - you just can't be bothered to context switch to other tools and re-learn all of that muscle memory. Plus, you start to integrate all of your workflows into one "supra" workflow. Which is nice.
1/ Another Friday, another Emacs thread. So, you've seen me ranting and raving about Emacs, and by now you may be asking: "So, are you telling me I should abandon X and use Emacs?" Sadly, the answer is almost always... "no, don't do that". But let me try to explain why.
2/ If you are a new-ish dev, you should try to optimise for two things simultaneously: a) things you find interesting *and* b) things that will make you employable. Therefore, you should use whatever environment and languages employers want. Sadly, that won't be Emacs (or Vim).
3/ Experienced devs end up converging to a productive workflow, adapted to a myriad of languages. In my 20 or so years of dev, I faced C, C++, VB, C#, Java, Kotlin, Ruby, Powershell, Bash, Python... Far too many languages to recount. Each had a preferred corporate dev environment
1/ Yet another thread on Emacs. One of the most important points in the life of an Emacs "user" (the quotes will become clear in a moment) is the moment where you realise that Emacs is not an editor but a framework to build editors, which happens to have a sample for you to try.
2/ I mean, most of us know this, but even then, its difficult to appreciate its logical consequences. Anyway, lets do a simple example for those not in the know. Say I start a project in VS Code, and create a new class. It prompts me to install extensions, and stuff happens...
3/ Then I go back to my class and if by magic, my environment is entirely configured to use C#. Now, as a regular developer I don't even bother distinguishing the different services the environment is giving me - I don't really care, all I care about is that my C# needs are met.
1/ Bem, sextou, e já à muito tempo que não faço um daqueles rants, de modo que tá na hora né. Hoje queria falar um pouco de energia, realpolitik e o futuro desse nosso laboratório de sobrevivência chamado Angola. Quem tá interessado, melhor pegar aquela cuca...
2/ Acho que até o mais desatento entre nós reparou nas várias e diversas notícias que têm aparecido sobre projectos de energias não renováveis em Angola. De repente, depois de muito tempo com tudo parado, agora parece está tudo em movimento.
3/ No contexto dos mercados financeiros, isto é bastante estranho: já é do conhecimento geral que nenhum pais desenvolvido vai fazer ou financiar projectos novos no campo das energias não renováveis. Há mesmo uma grande pressão para desinvestir, de todos os lados.
1/ Devo de começar por dizer que eu não sou um "saudosista" e que pouco - ou melhor, nada - conheci da Angola colonial. A independência para mim foi uma das nossas maiores vitórias alcançadas. Mas este post no Facebook mostra um lado interessante da nossa capacidade productiva.
2/ É importante comparar laranjas com laranjas: a economia colonial não era uma economia de mercado, o que significa que a viabilidade de muitos destes negocios não é fácil de aferir; seriam estas fábricas e fazendas produtivas apenas por usarem trabalhadores mal remunerados?
3/ Mas o que não se pode negar é que, comparando esta lista com o que foi feito desde 2002, não andámos muito para a frente desde o fim da guerra. E pior, se quisermos comparar alguém mais próximo temos só que ver o Rwanda (já nem falo do Botswana).
1/ After many years of thinking that hydrogen was a waste of time, it suddenly hit me: in the absence of a *major* breakthrough to allows us to create cheap batteries at will, hydrogen is going to be _the battery_.
2/ The growth of the solar and wind capacity will be much, much faster than the battery capacity and soon - as it always happens with capitalism - it will overshoot demand. Then it'll overshoot battery capacity. At that point you need to store energy by any means - even if lossy.
3/ That's where hydrogen comes in. It may be wildly inefficient when compared to lithium batteries, but if energy has a marginal cost close to zero, hey who cares? Better to store the energy in hydrogen than to throw it away.