Pretty confident in my solve. The only ones I didn’t get myself were 20-down, 29-down (obvious in retrospect), and 21-across (inferred the word, but didn’t know the tool).

        N I X O S
        O     P   K     C P
G T K   O     E M A C S   R
N   D E B I A N   L   C L I
O N E     T   S   I   R   N
M         H   U     M I N T
E D I T O R   S       P     H
  O       E L E M E N T A R Y
  N U C L E I     A   I     P
L G     S   N     G E N D E R
  L S       U     L   G     L
  E         X F C E         A
L S       P     E   L       N
S       Z O R I N O S     C D
          P     T

I’m probably more of a git noob than you, but I do usually use the cli. I figured if I’m going to give a gui editor an honest shake I should try to do things the inbuilt, gui, way. And more to the point, I do appreciate a good user interface with information at a glance or click instead of having to type out a command each time.

Very first impressions since I literally just downloaded before writing this, and haven’t read the manual, I may change my mind with more experience.

• It’s incredibly snappy, to my eyes as fast as Helix.
• A lot of stuff that took me a while to figure out in VS Code was immediately obvious. How to toggle inlay hints for Rust? Parameter Icon > Inlay Hints (with the keyboard shortcut there for easy toggling).
• Interactive is generally intuitive because it seems pretty permissive. Tab vs Enter to autocomplete? Either! ctrl-shift-Z vs ctrl-Y to redo? Same thing!
• After being so used to Helix I often reach for keybinds that don’t exist. I might have to learn Vim keybinds because I’m definitely going to keep trying Zed.
• Not sure how I feel about what seems to be an inline discord-like chat/voice-call feature.

Going to check out if there’s git integration, because I couldn’t easily find it.

It’s not controversial to accept that all reasoning requires making some basic assumptions. You do understand that I’m just pointing out that a counter-argument exists and I don’t actually take it to be damning. It is the same as in all fields; there are assumptions. We assume non-contradiction and an excluded middle. This is reasonable because we can’t do much without the assumption. You can call it a properly basic belief. But that doesn’t make it objectively true. A person who doesn’t make these assumptions—if one exists—could be ridiculed, called less than nothing, even. Such a person could form no coherent views. So? I agree that all useful though must make these presupposition. But perceived utility does not a truth make.

Listing philosophers doesn’t do much. I’ll freely admit to not having read much of theirs, and I certainly won’t consume their corpora for an internet discussion. However I would be delighted to learn the mistake I’ve made, because I’m certainly no expert philosopher. If you don’t wish to continue, have a great day. If you do, I look forward to it.

Stating something doesn’t make it true. Your proof presumably relies on the past causing the future.

Oh sure, you can believe things without a sound proof (especially since even those must rely on assumptions). I was mostly trying to demonstrate that there are sincere counter-arguments to even such an uncontroversial belief. Would love to see your rigorous proof if you think you have one though.

I would challenge you to. Saying literally anything about the future requires an assumption that it is affected by the past (ie. that previous events cause future ones).

I mean there is technically no sound way to prove causality (at least to my knowledge). It all goes back to “It’s been that way before” which is fair enough, but not rigorous.

They’re talking about the desktop application.

Maybe there’s a cultural idea about mirrors being somehow “the same”. After all, a mirror shows the same thing regardless of which one it is. Or related in cultural mythology to a singular adjoining world that contains your doppelganger (in such media, you don’t usually have a separate mirror-self for every mirror, but one that can be accessed from any mirror). Also could be a turn of phrase that stuck without a good reason.

What do you find not great about mouse/keyboard GNOME? All the gestures I know have pretty simple mouse and keyboard equivalents. So far I just gesture three fingers up/down/left/right, which I can do on a keyboard with super/alt-super-left/alt-super-right or on a mouse with hot-corner/corner-click/corner-scroll. If there’s a gesture I’m missing out on please let me know, I always like to learn new tricks.

I haven’t had to use any application like that in a while, though I’m sure you’re right that they exist. Could you give me an example of an application feature that’s only accessible from the system tray?

I read it as pro-gyn-nova

• Pro: as in professional/effective
• Gyn: woman (from Proto-Indo-European *gwen), like in gynocology
• Nova: new (in many romance languages)

It rolls off the tongue and encapsulates three important aspects. I’m sure there are other readings of it too.

A “cure” in this situation means an essentially guaranteed method of treatment. Cancers vary greatly, with some being benign, some being very treatable, and some being extremely deadly (at least with current technology).

(0..=100).filter(|n| n % 2 == 1).for_each(|n| println!("{n}"))

They’re still working on it, and if it’s been a while since you last checked they may have already implemented the ones you wanted.

Why wouldn’t they?

So long as you have Firefox installed there’s a firefox search bar widget available. In Nova you add widgets with a long press on home screen and swipe up.

You can find the app for the launcher in the play store. There should be instructions in the app for making it your default launcher. Otherwise there are plenty of tutorials online.

You can use a different launcher to customize your home screen and get rid of the Google search bar. I use Nova and can confirm that a singular Firefox search bar works nicely, and I’m sure that it does with other launchers as well.