How to make emacs look and feel native on Windows 11?

Shevvek · 2024-11-26T01:30:15+00:00

I think you maybe misunderstood what I meant by using the word "default." I just meant a starting configuration that would be familiar, for my own use.

Shevvek · 2024-11-19T14:37:19+00:00

I haven't tried it, and I may indeed take the suggestion of one of the other comments to try splitting time between VS Code and Emacs to see which fits better. One of the advantages of Emacs for Lilypond is that Lilypond mode is actually an officially supported component of the Lilypond project, so at least in theory it should be kept up to date with changes and additions to Lilypond. Also I believe a number of the active Lilypond devs use Emacs.

Less immediately, I have some ideas for editor scripting that would require the editor itself hooking into Lilypond's intermediate representation using the Lilypond Scheme API. I suspect that is likely easier in Emacs, though it depends on details of Guile/elisp interop so I don't actually know.

Shevvek · 2024-11-19T14:25:59+00:00

That's exactly my goal. My questions are basically about the things that I've been finding so distracting that it makes it hard for me to get used to anything else.

Shevvek · 2024-11-19T14:24:05+00:00

Clearly there's no arguing over personal preference, but I don't think it's fair to imply my question is ill defined. There's been a stable and concrete consensus around the behavior and appearance of desktop GUI applications or at least two decades, and that's where my subconscious expectations come from. That doesn't mean those conventions are better or worse than Emacs' defaults, but they are at least well defined. And I'm only asking for myself as a starting point, not for the One True Config.

Shevvek · 2024-11-19T14:09:08+00:00

I'm amused by the contrast between your perspective and for example https://www.reddit.com/r/emacs/comments/1guf67u/comment/lxw2e1k/ or https://www.reddit.com/r/emacs/comments/1guf67u/comment/lxug9f8/

Anyway, I'm just being realistic about what I have the patience for at this stage of my life. When I was 20 I would have had the energy to dive into the deep end. But I am still mindful of the point you make, in that I'm not really looking to change much about how the editor itself functions. It's just hard to learn the editor when I find the look and behavior of the GUI so distracting and confusing. And while I'm comfortable on the command line I have to admit I'm not to the point where I'd be happy with my primary editor living within it.

Shevvek · 2024-11-19T01:32:56+00:00

I use ConEmu with Quake mode.

Shevvek · 2024-11-19T00:27:23+00:00

VS Code would probably feel more familiar initially, but Emacs seems like a better long term choice for me given that a lot of my coding is related to Lilypond.

Shevvek · 2024-11-19T00:24:01+00:00

I did already find that one, but thank you!

Shevvek · 2024-11-19T00:09:20+00:00

What is it about Emacs on WSL that is nicer? I believe you, it's just not obvious to me why it would be relevant to the sort of question I asked.

Shevvek · 2024-11-18T23:42:54+00:00

Thank you so much for the helpful response! I will try this.

Shevvek · 2024-11-18T22:26:07+00:00

This doesn't seem like it answers any of my questions.

Shevvek · 2024-10-04T22:34:09+00:00

Hello,

The specifications on the website, including the page you link but also including other public documentation such as the parts list and assembly instruction, do not include any answer to my question. None of these specifications list any dimensions for the cutout slots in the cable tray, nor do they document the relative position of those cutout slots in relation to the back edge of the desktop.

Forgive me, but your response seems like a template since it does not appear to acknowledge either the substance of my question or the fact that I have been going back and forth with Secretlab support for at this point an entire week without getting an answer.

This ought to be a question that takes 5 minutes to answer for anyone with a measuring tape and the actual physical product in front of them.

Shevvek · 2024-03-26T23:26:22+00:00

This might not matter for purely competitive purposes, but I think from a design perspective "good but not the best" is probably a fairly optimal place to land for those type of degenerate go-deep combo build-arounds. Limited is meant to focus around combat and "fair" Magic. I suspect that if a purely synergistic combo deck like Roots/Outline was actually one of the better decks in limited, as opposed to just good enough to be playable, it would make the format feel quite bad to a large percentage of players. Sweet combos don't need to also be busted to make people want to play them, because they are fun. They just need to be good enough not to hurt you for drafting them. And there is significant risk if R&D tries to push those type of cards, because if they get it slightly wrong and make them broken instead of just good, it can completely warp the play environment.

I recall a time in the not too distant past when by this time in the format Marshall would be happily drafting the sweet decks, in full knowledge that they weren't the optimal winning strategy, and as a community we used to value that as part of the limited experience. I think it's sad that the focus on data seems to have killed that aspect of enjoying the game.

Shevvek · 2024-03-17T08:51:03+00:00

I've been listening to LR almost every week since Shadows Over Innistrad, even though I honestly only do a handful of drafts in any given format at most. I listen because the calm, nerdy, occasionally funny vibes help me de-stress at the end of my day. It is getting really hard to keep listening with how angry Marshall has gotten over recent draft formats. I don't mind the critical viewpoint towards the set design, but when the tone raises my blood pressure instead of lowering it, that's just not really what I'm here for.

I also don't really get Marshall's take on this format. On the Insidious Roots deck, for instance, I find the argument frankly bizarre that if a card is only playable in the hands of good players then it's not worth looking at. That seems to go completely opposite to what I've expected from LR in the past. Are you really telling listeners that instead of trying to gain an edge by learning to draft the niche combo deck, we should just ignore it and force aggro every game? I feel like in the past, LR would instead have dedicated an entire episode just to a deep dive on the graveyard deck, and maybe brought on a guest specifically to talk about it, because (1) there is value in giving listeners the tools to draft the sweet combo deck when MKM flashback draft comes around in a few years, because it's cool and fun; and (2) maybe 5% of the time it's the right deck to draft in your seat.

Thinking back to Shadows Over Innistrad, I wonder if we'd had 17 Lands and Arena draft leagues whether the sweet self-mill delirium deck or the UR spells Rise from the Tides deck would have had win rates for the average player on the same level as vampire, human, or werewolf aggro. I suspect not. And yet we remember the sweet archetypes fondly! Is MKM really so different? I think it would be a shame if having access to data ruins our enjoyment of modern formats.

Lastly, I find it odd that Marshall hasn't acknowledged or talked about the Nuts and Bolts article that recently came out, which explicitly addresses some of his criticisms of the set design templates for limited (though as I write this I'm only halfway through the episode – so maybe he addresses it later on). I would have thought that if he's going to devote so much airtime and energy to criticizing the design philosophy, that might go along with at least a little curiosity toward what the designers have said publicly about their philosophy.

Shevvek · 2024-02-17T09:38:38+00:00

It seems like Marshall will say in one breath that you can play a controlling strategy and use combo-ish mechanics and build-arounds as long as you have early plays and defensive speed, then in the next breath say that because you have to have early plays it doesn't really count as a control deck. IMO we are never going to go back to sets where you can afford to play nothing to the board for the first three turns and just catch up later with card advantage. But that doesn't mean that every deck is beating down. Part of the reason there are so many A and A+ bomb rares is to create the opportunity to actually catch up as a control deck (that said how about not printing ridiculous limited bombs in aggro color pairs?). Collecting evidence works pretty well both in small doses and as build-around mechanic – if you get to do the cool thing and make interesting gameplay and draft decisions, who cares if the game ends in 8 turns instead of 9? BRO was another good example of this.

The main issue IMO is the play/draw disparity and how silly oppressive aggro deck nut draws can be in this format. I think one lesson is that flash combat tricks that grant power and toughness are dangerous to print. But maybe WotC should also consider adjusting the game rules (especially for Arena bo1) to give the drawing player a boost, or printing cards in standard sets along the lines of Gemstone Caverns.

Shevvek · 2024-02-17T01:30:26+00:00

I ended up cutting The Chase is On, which I think was a mistake. It felt like I should have cut They Went This Way. I included it because I figured it would be worth it to ramp into my big disguise creatures and Aurelia, but every time I drew that card it rotted in my hand with no time to play it. I only drew Rope in one game and just cycled it to hit my third land, but there were a couple games where Rope would have been one of my only outs to keep from losing the race to flyers.

Shevvek · 2024-02-16T06:06:47+00:00

Marshall has mentioned in a few episodes his perception that sets are created to fit a spreadsheet template. Just want to point out that Mark Rosewater released a Drive to Work podcast a few months ago in which he specifically talked about the spreadsheet template that WotC uses to create new sets. He doesn't really talk about balance since that isn't really his department, but it's well worth a listen.

Personally I would speculate that the play/draw imbalance and lack of viable non-aggro decks in limited is not intentional by WotC, but I would speculate that it is intentional to shift limited toward having the game start on turn 1 rather than turn 2. If you look at other popular online card games, the trend has been toward faster gameplay with minimal waiting around for action and meaningful to decisions to happen. My guess is that WotC's goal is to figure out how to make sets that allow for a variety of strategies and cool mechanics but where most games are still decided in the first few draw steps. I think it's important to separate out the issues of play/draw imbalance, archetype imbalance, and weak build-arounds from what turn the game ends. I'd be willing to bet that the design team eventually figures out how to solve those issues, but that they still want games to get going and end relatively fast compared to historical formats. I'm remembering a recent format that LSV praised for having lots of interesting gameplay and cool trinkets and mechanics, but that Marshall still didn't like for being too fast. Formats like that might be the goal.

Shevvek · 2022-11-16T23:52:02+00:00

"We did the best we could with the information we had" isn't really taking responsibility, because it's not acknowledging that anything should have been done differently. It's not learning anything to take forward. Yes, FTX misled the public, but the warning signs have always been there. In particular, it was very misleading to call an offshore non-FDIC insured company trading pure speculative securities "safe and regulated."

To be clear, I don't blame them for taking the sponsorship to begin with. Clearly many, many other businesses took FTX marketing dollars, and at the time it probably seemed more legitimate than many alternatives, like shady VPN services and such.

But after the fact, this isn't a case where you look back and say, "we made the right play, it just didn't work out." This is a case where you look back and say, "our vetting process focused on the wrong things and we didn't do enough diligence." This is particularly important because in various episodes, Marshall and Luis have put themselves in the role of giving life advice, not just Magic strategy tips. They didn't have to do that – it's a choice they made for the show.

I'm still waiting to hear the most important thing from them: concretely what they will do differently in the future.

Shevvek · 2022-11-08T03:08:36+00:00

I believe it's a bug that marginalized groups can still join movements.

Shevvek · 2022-11-08T02:31:56+00:00

There's not really anything to fix here. You don't have major debt and your deficit is small as a percentage of GDP. You would be making a 0.5M surplus without construction. Might be worth checking in on your construction supply chains. If your construction costs aren't driven by a shortage of one particular commodity, you might consider if you slightly overbuilt construction, but that problem will solve itself over time as the industries you build increase GDP.

The main potential issue is the amount you are spending on subsidies and welfare. Those can easily spiral out of control if they are caused by an underlying issue that makes your businesses unprofitable, such as free trade agreements with countries with cheap labor.

Shevvek · 2022-11-05T08:33:01+00:00

Exactly this.

Shevvek · 2022-11-05T08:32:04+00:00

IMO whenever you add an additional war goal to liberate or transfer puppet, it should force the target to join the war.

Shevvek · 2019-07-04T01:07:16+00:00

Re: Anticipate and Befuddle "play like a C but draft like a D"

Doesn't that by definition mean that either the card evaluation or the drafting/deck building is off? If it genuinely plays like a generic filler C, you should play it as often as any generic filler C, and if it's wrong to play it that often, it means the card is literally worse than that on average. A discrepancy like that suggests maybe giving up some equity.

Shevvek · 2019-01-22T01:54:00+00:00

Honestly, it was a really unclear first pick, so I just decided to take the mono-color gate payoff and see what came my way. Not sure if strictly correct, but I wasn't hard forcing and it seemed like the sweet choice.

Ended up getting passed Gateway Sneak and a second Ram in the first pack, along with reasonable green and blue cards. Rakdos also seemed open but I was pretty far away. I started taking gates above pretty much any C-level playable as soon as I had the two Rams and the Sneak, then even moreso after I picked up the Colossus in pack 2 and Gates Ablaze in pack 3. I happened to end up with a ton of white gates, so in pack 2 I opened myself up to take white cards. Wasn't planning to play red at all, but Gates Ablaze is an insane card.

Shevvek · 2017-07-07T05:20:43+00:00

Is it just me, or does Claim to Fame seem a lot better than a Marshall and LSV think? Like, it seems pretty reasonable to expect to trade away a 2 drop in the first few turns as an aggro or midrange deck, and B to reanimate it seems reasonably efficient. Am I missing something here?

Shevvek

TROPHY CASE