The M1 Macs' benchmarks looked way beyond my wildest expectations. While the dream scenario would be a reasonably competative RISC-V CPU taking over the world, I'm still glad x86 gets some competitation from a less restricted architecture.

The power efficiency is just so tempting on the new Macs. That said, they seem like a nightmare for user repair and probably won't run Linux smoothly anytime soon. I did however start wondering whether the old everything-as-pluggable-module-upgradibility is still something we should shoot for, especially in a laptop. If we can get the cost of system-on-a-chips to down a reasonable degree, I'd be all-in for throw-away CPUs.

Never thought the day would come where I hesitate about which combination of 4K and ultrawide monitors to go for.

Re: Site Update: WebMention Support

It's exciting to see another website supporting WebMention (and return of the CSS snow)!

My primary motif of using WebMention is to ultimately centralize all my comments/replies/posts on blogs/forums/Fediverse back to my website (and allowing commenters on my site to do the same). This subsequently prompted me to add a short note/title-less post section here.

Do you plan on displaying contents of the WebMentions you get or sending WebMentions from your website?

Apparently Apple has a bunch of heuristics to determine which Siri to activate when there are multiple iDevices listening (and a non-zero amount of the world population is trying to figure out what they are). I really hope they make "Hey iPhone Siri, stop the alarm" just work so that I don't have to yell at a confused iPad twice every morning. Support for "Hey Siri #31174" or "Hey Lord Sirious" would have been nice too.

It's the 17th day of AoC! I've tied my 2019 records! The problems do feel easier this year though.

It snowed yesterday. I noticed those salt-sized ice flakes occationally making tiny marks on my foggy glasses caused by wearing face mask. Even more interesting are the thin layer of frosting found on bridge surfaces made from steel: my bicycle left behind it a double-helix-shaped trail.

twixter -> twoxter -> twixt3r -> twIVter -> twixter (in typical movie sequal naming fashion).

Reading through the latest Go generic proposal, I felt ok at the beginning, but increasingly uneasy as I scroll along to find the long list of restrictions and edge cases. It's clear that the dev team is actually painstakingly trying to fit a generics implementation (almost exactly as people have asked for) into the language. Perhaps because Go seemed like such an opinionated language, I was not actually expecting such an serious attempt at all: I would have expected Go generics to simply involve a handful of special interface types from standard library that are somehow unboxed (have one less layer of pointer redirection) and we still write for-loops instead of map-reduces.

It's one of those cases where I applaud the effort, but I'm not convinced that a suitable solution can be achieved (like The Rise of Skywalker). The proposed generics system eats into Go's originally quite orthogonal feature set and reading through all the caveats of how it would interact with other parts of Go already feels similar in length as the entire Go spec. On the other hand, generics and interface types obviously overlap in functionality and while there are restrictions in place to discourage a Go version of "almost always auto" from happening, having to think about which one to (not) use takes away some of Go's appeal for me.

Ugh, this is such an arduous yet unrewarding path to go down. Maybe Go team's .async moment would eventually come and we would all love the solution, but then again, I really don't mind writing generics-free Go that much.