Well, Wikipedia does say:

The [TOML] project standardizes the implementation of the ubiquitous INI file format (which it has largely supplanted[citation needed]), removing ambiguity from its interpretation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOML

Counterpoints:

• TOML is intended for configuration, not for data serialization, so you shouldn’t be sending it over the wire in all too crazy ways anyways.
• Most protocols will have a built-in way of knowing when the whole content has been transferred, typically by putting a content length into the header.
• Having to wait until the closing } or ] can also be a disadvantage of JSON, since you cannot stream it, i.e. start processing the fields/elements before the whole thing has arrived. (You probably still don’t want to use TOML for that, though. JSONL, CSV or such are a better idea.)

Well, TOML is essentially just an extension of the INI format (which helped its adoption quite a bit, since you could just fork INI parsers for all kinds of programming languages).

And then, yeah, flattening everything is kind of baked into INI, where it arguably made more sense.
Although, I do also feel like non-techies fare better with flat files, since they don’t have to understand where into the structure they have to insert the value. They just need find the right “heading” to put the line under, which is something they’re familiar with.

They serve largely different use-cases. JSON is good for serializing data. TOML is good for configuration.

Yeah, I was gonna specifically pick out biology. Feels like the more you know about it, the cooler it gets to just head outside and look at critters. Kind of like Pokémon, but real.

Most developers I’ve looked at would happily just paste the curl|bash thing into the terminal.

I mean, I typically see it used for installing applications, and so long as TLS is used for the download, I’m still not aware of a good reason why you should check the Bash script in particular in that case, since the application itself could just as well be malware.

Of course, it’s better to check the Bash script than to not check it, but at that point we should also advise to download the source code for the application, review it and then compile it yourself.
At some point, you just have to bite the bullet and I have not yet seen a good argument why the Bash script deserves special treatment here…

Having said that, for cases where you’re not installing an application, yeah, reviewing the script allows you to use it, without having to trust the source to the same degree as you do for installing an application.

One thing that will become important pretty quick if you continue making these scripts is that it’s almost always better to wrap your variables in quotes - so it becomes yt-dlp -x “$a”.

Oh man, this reminds me of the joke that any program that’s more complex than Hello World has bugs – and folks still don’t even agree how to spell “Hello, World!”.

Of course, Bash is a particular minefield in this regard…

Yeah, so many people swear by mechanical keyboards with a huge amount of key travel, and I never see it discussed that the key travel itself is problematic.

Man, I really hate how much they waffle. The only valid response is “You have to drive, because you need your car at the car wash in order to wash it”.

I don’t need an explanation what kind of problem it is, nor a breakdown of the options. I don’t need a bulletpoint list of arguments. I don’t need pros and cons. And I definitely don’t need a verdict.

Yeah, I would’ve rather put this into the ADHD corner…

Firefox Sync is end-to-end-encrypted. Mozilla cannot see your synced data.

Either way, I have no idea how this is supposed to happen without you entering your credentials into Firefox at some point. Even if Mozilla wanted to be sus, they couldn’t just guess which account is yours.

Well, you don’t really need to announce anything, if the AI-generated submissions were super helpful anyways.

But yeah, I guess, all I can say is that I really don’t believe your theory. Especially Widelands could’ve done so many other things in the past, if they cared so much for attention.

But I have also been in the maintainer role, having to deal with generated submissions, and it really isn’t fun. I’m talking specifically about fun, because these are community-driven projects, so you need volunteers to have fun for anything to happen.
In theory, a generated code submission could bring useful changes to the project, but it still isn’t fun to review, because there isn’t a human on the other side that you can teach. Even worse, you’re effectively just talking to an LLM through a middleman. If I wanted to use an LLM, I’d use it directly.

Community-driven open-source projects don’t have anything to sell. They don’t care terribly much for the publicity.

Are you using Firefox Sync with the same e-mail address? I believe, that all gets put into the same account system.

Yet more suggestions which you didn’t ask for:

1. GitNote might be up your alley. Its UI is not as slick as QuillPad, nor does it have as many features, but it does faithfully keep the folder structure.
   Somewhat of a deal-breaker for me personally: It can’t do reminders.

2. Embrace the chaos. 😅 I have a little program for managing my notes on desktop and it just dumps them all in one folder, too. If I need to find something again, I’ve got a little text search, which is basically the equivalent of grep -iR. I just make sure to mention enough keywords in each note, so that I can find it again.
   Personally, I much prefer this workflow, because you can start typing (and hitting Ctrl+S) and then later ensure that it has all the right metadata, rather than having to select a folder upfront where it will be saved.

I actually tried QuillPad not too long ago and couldn’t make it work for me, but being able to save as normal files seems to be a recent addition, so maybe that’s what I was missing.
I’ll probably try setting it up to work with my desktop note system then…

Well, Kate would be the obvious choice for KDE…

It’s the R programming language, typically used in statistics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(programming_language)

To be honest, what I’m most mad about isn’t the typoes, it’s that someone generated this image and figured, yeah alright, that will clear things up.

On some level you want to believe that even if someone does not come up with a proper concept for a visualization, that they still check what the AI shat out, so that it’s at the very least not conceptually wrong and not confusing.

This image isn’t just shitty, it’s actively worse than having no visualization. They could’ve generated that, chuckled, and not used it. Just how do you blunder your perception check so badly that you decide to include it anyways?

Wow, it stole it badly enough that it might not count as copyright infringement in court, but it also stole it badly enough that it isn’t useful at all.

I admire your ability to interpret anything into this fucking picture…