Tighter (read better) integration with VSCode and Github than what you could get running claude code on the side.
Your question does raise a valid point - Github Copilot's value proposition is fairly limited in my opinion. Not to say worthless but limited and clearly varies depending on how Githubbey your dev workflows are.
> It's a fundamentally substantive difference in the two structures
Yes, it is a substantive difference but it does not follow that this difference provides the 'constitution' property.
> one of these has an indisputable source of truth... the foundations are not the same
They are so similar as to be almost the same and if an 'indisputable source of truth' exists anywhere, it is not in the written documents or their structure but unwritten norms and rituals sit beneath both.
What stops a President from simply choosing to ignore a Supreme Court ruling and what prevents the King from returning to personal rule?
The lack of arbitrary rule is a defining feature of both and relies on something that emerged rather than something imposed from without by written words.
> What stops a President from simply choosing to ignore a Supreme Court ruling and what prevents the King from returning to personal rule?
Legally? The fact that everybody under the president -- including those in the military -- understand they are swearing their oath to the constitution -- not the King, not the Crown, not God, not the Supreme Court, not anything else. And that the Supreme Court says what the constitution means. And that if there is a clear and direct contradiction between the Supreme Court and the president, the former trumps (no pun intended) the latter.
Physically? "Nothing", yeah. Same goes for non-presidents. If you can get enough people to follow you (or maybe at least enough of the people with guns) everything else becomes irrelevant, including whether your title was president or King or God or Constitution or whatever.
> The lack of arbitrary rule is a defining feature of both
It is emphatically not. There are lots of countries with constitutions that nevertheless have arbitrary rule. As there are countries without constitutions or arbitrary rule.
> They are so similar as to be almost the same and if an 'indisputable source of truth' exists anywhere, it is not in the written documents or their structure but unwritten norms and rituals sit beneath both.
No, that's exactly what those are not. Unwritten stories, traditions, and rituals are very much disputable. That's kind of the entire point of writing things down, and the point of the game we call Telephone. The indisputable bits are physical artifacts everyone can see with their own eyes.
> And that if there is a clear and direct contradiction between the Supreme Court and the president, the former trumps (no pun intended) the latter.
The extent to which members of the executive branch adhere to their oaths is not written down. Ofc the oath is written and its power may partly derive from its written nature (clear; predictable; well publicised etc) but there is a lot more than its written nature that might cause a general to refuse to follow a Presidential order to arrest all people suspected of voting for their opponent.
> The lack of arbitrary rule... is emphatically not [a defining feature of both]
I guess it depends on whether you (or most reasonable people) would call countries like Russia a 'constitutional republic'. Of course there are plenty of dysfunctional and dictatorial countries which superficially describe themselves as XYZ but it lacks substance.
While there may be a textbook answer, I strongly suspect it is debatable within the field and comes down (like so many things) to how you define your terms. Do you define 'constitutional' as attaching more to the codified and written nature of any rules or whether it is more to do with predictable and enforceable rules limiting arbitrary government. My view is that it attaches more the latter.
If you go into the etymology of the term, I don't think codification is baked in - that you can find a large number of books discussing the English or UK constitution (using that term) is testament to the fact that it's not just some niche view. I do suspect the influence of US popular culture (e.g. Hollywood) has biased the term towards the US' arrangement vs. the alternatives.
> The extent to which members of the executive branch adhere to their oaths is not written down. Ofc the oath is written
So... it is written down...
Notice the president isn't even mentioned. [1] And it even says all enemies, foreign and domestic. The oath is 100% unambiguous and crystal clear that in the event that the president becomes an enemy of the constitution, you defend the constitution, not the president.
> but there is a lot more than its written nature
We're not playing no-true-Scotsman here, right? There are always going to be more factors both in favor and against such a position than any human can enumerate ahead of time. This in no way contradicts anything I wrote.
>>> definition of a constitution
>> The lack of arbitrary rule... is emphatically not [a defining feature]
> I guess it depends on whether you (or most reasonable people) would call countries like Russia a 'constitutional republic'
No, the fact that Russia has a constitution doesn't depend on what I (or most reasonable people) may call Russia or its form of government at all.
> I strongly suspect it is debatable within the field and comes down (like so many things) to how you define your terms.
Russia has a constitution, end of story. There's even a Wikipedia article on it! [2]
If you believe otherwise, just assert "Russia doesn't have a constitution" directly. No need to dive into the debate over whether "Russia is a constitutional republic" when Russia clearly has a constitution. Of course, you're not going to claim it doesn't have a constitution (otherwise you already would've), which... well, I rest my case.
> Do you define 'constitutional' as attaching more to the codified and written nature of any rules
I'm not defining "constitutional" (adjective), whose definition comes in conjunction with the noun following it. I am merely defining "constitution", which is a simple noun. Recall that the sentence I was originally replying to -- word for word -- was: "there is absolutely a Constitution in the UK." Not "the UK is a constitutional <noun>." That's all. The debate is not over anything that involves the <noun> following the word "constitutional". The dispute is over whether the UK has a constitution, and in that debate, it is indisputable that e.g. Russia indeed has a constitution, whether it is well-followed or not, or whether we like it or not.
I think what's becoming pretty clear that people just really desperately want to say the UK has a constitution regardless of how many contortions of the definition of "constitution" that requires, because... well, a constitution is a good thing, the UK sees its form of government as good, so of course it must have a good basis. (Global virtue-signaling, I guess?) Which I find ironic, because a good constitution-less government would be something to be proud of, not something embarrassing to avoid.
If this is hard to wrestle with, consider this: imagine a world where the UK was the same as it is today, but everything else was flipped. i.e. the US & every other country that has a constitution was suffering, and every other monarchy was flourishing. Do you really believe the experts "in the field" would still be arguing the UK has a constitution today, or would they just stick with calling it a monarchy and vehemently deny any constitution existing? It's pretty obvious to me the answer is the latter, but of course, I can't prove anything about an alternate timeline.
Some special amendment procedure is not the only or even defining feature of constitutional law. There is non-constitutional law that has this property and there is constitutional law that does not.
I notice you are using the phrase "constitutional law" now, where as the original question was whether the UK can be said to have "a constitution."
The oddities of this "duck" go far beyond its lack of entrenchment. It also lacks form and definition in the way that a puff of smoke lacks form and definition. It includes such nebulous elements as common law, unwritten convention, and even legal commentary of various law scholars. It's also said to be in constant flux as it evolves over time.
It may be a useful abstraction within the context of UK law to refer to this amorphous blob as the "constitution," but for anyone unfamiliar with the UK's system of government, to say the UK has a constitution is grossly misleading in as much as all of the conclusions the listener will draw from that assertion will be false. It's like characterizing a chicken eating grain out of your hand as being "attacked by a dinosaur." The chicken may belong to the clade "Dinosauria" and may have inadvertently pecked your palm in its feeding frenzy, but in as much as it communicates information contrary to fact, it is a confabulation. At best, it's a lawyer's lie, to coin a phrase.
Repo hosting is the kind of thing that ought to be distributed/federated.
The underlying protocol (git) already has the cryptographic primitives that decouples trust in the commit tree (GPG or SSH signing) with trust in the storage service (i.e. github/codeberg/whatever).
All you need to house centrally is some SSH and/or gpg key server and some means of managing namespaces which would benefit from federation as well.
You'd get the benefits of de-centralisation - no over-reliance on actors like MS or cloudflare. I suppose if enough people fan out to gitlab, bitbucket, self hosting, codeberg, you end up with something that organically approximates a formally decentralised git repo system.
I hadn't heard of either of these, but I'm interested.
I think at this point the bigger barrier to me with leaving GitHub (professionally, at least) is all the non-GitHub stuff that integrates nicely with it and badly or not at all with other solutions. And like, I don't blame tool providers for making a rational economic choice in that regard, but if leaving GitHub means leaving seamless Sentry, Depot, Linear, editor plugins, AI integrations, etc that makes it a tougher pill to swallow.
I worked for years at a shop that had in-house GitLab and we felt this pain first hand all the time. GitLab tries to be a one-stop shop and own the whole project management and testing/deployment workflow by building everything in house, but there were always gaps and it was hard not to be jealous of places that just did everything on GitHub and could use whatever best in class saas stuff they wanted.
Gitlab has been tracking a federation feature since at least 2018 [1], and I expect bitbucket, sourcehut, gitea, and others would move quickly on something like this as well, but there needs to be a protocol defined and some kind of plan for handling spam/abuse.
Nor will you be immune from AMD Vitis/Vivado sideloading crap into the bitstream.
Sadly, you have to fab your own chips using sovereign facilities if you want security. Individuals simply cannot access genuinely high assurance product and there's no major government in the world with the slightest interest in changing their stance on this policy. There are simply too many governments long on SIGINT to go down such a route.
You're not adding the +nightly switch and the required flags to compiled std. Just setting panic=abort in cargo.toml isn't enough.
One can get binaries pretty damn small (low-mid tens of kilobytes for a basic cli program doing something like hashing of a file).
Problem I've found with manually compiling std (which has ancillary benefits of being able to compile to a specific uarch) is it can break the compilation process when bringing in third-party deps. The config.toml (stored in $PROJECT_ROOT/.cargo) overrides cargo's behaviour for all dependencies as well - which may break those compilations.
Tbh, it's one reason I don't particularly rate the rustc+cargo toolchain - but for most people writing regular applications: just being able to do ```cargo build -r``` and not care about binary size, uarch optimization or custom llvm/rustc optimizations (PGO etc), most won't care.
I habe a few lying about. My fun project is to implement a usb CCID (smartcard) device to create a pkcs11comiant HSM from scratch (FYI the ESA dis this on MAX10s for one of their satellites or probes). Assuming you dev environment is not compromised. USB 1.1 and USB 2.0 have free/OSS IP cores.
Personally, I do not see point in implementing a softcore
Cpu unless design absolutely requires it.
Separately, FPGA makers has shifted focus a bit from facilitating hardware design to providing coprocessors/accel cards.
I can't speak for you personally but I think its simpler than that - Java is unfashionable because it's ubiquitous. It's the Ford of programming languages. Not every problem needs a Ferrari - indeed its bad for the organization to be building everything with Ferraris.
I do wonder whether someone has looked at the game theory of all this - how devs (and employers) pick langs and frameworks as a strategy to maximize their respective positions under competition.
It's also used by some pretty huge and non-middling corporations. I don't know why I'm defending it - I find Java a too verbose and don't use it personally- however if I were employing and needed to build anything that wasn't a game, an OS, embedded etc. I'd go with Java for large chunks of it because I can find good people to build, maintain and improve it - for years to come. I'd probably throw in some Go and perhaps C++ for compute bottlenecks.
