Ghostty is awesome, ill echo the sentiment regarding lack of IPC/scripting API being my current hold back. Sticking with kitty til then. I still keep the ghostty binary on hand so I can +boo :^)

for libghostty consumers, favorite i've tried so far is neurosnap/zmx.

ive been working on glue for zmx+kitty (would do ghostty if it had proper ipc/scripting support). just changed the repo visibility on on gh cwelsys/kmux.

Chinese mainland or mainland US?

China mainland. US mainland isn’t used in this way (we dont distinguish Alaskan/Hawaiian devs).

Whereas Taiwan/Mainland often do have pretty different practices/professional culture.

The context is somebody asking "Mainland US or Mainland China?" The comment you're responding to brought up Taiwan because that's the natural "not-mainland" when you're talking about China.

Almost. Both China and USA have threatened military action in Taiwan and Greenland respectively, but legally the USA and Greenland are not one; Greenland is a territory of Denmark despite having an independent government. Taiwan and Mainland China also have independent governments, but legally both consider themselves China, so it would be like North and South Korea if they had never agreed that they are separate countries now. Recently Taiwan has begun changing their identity as an independent country, and began the legal updates, however this is not internationally recognized because mainland china has resisted it, and frankly few countries want to go against china and risk sanctions or other political action from china. Even the USA doesn't recognize taiwan as separate, officially, although actions speak louder than words, and it is clear that most respect Taiwan's desire for independence and treat them as sovereign.

What?? China and Taiwan are two separate countries.

Sort of, except not really, except yes really. It's complicated.

The China that was a founding member of the United Nations was the Republic of China (ROC), and it controlled both mainland China and what we call Taiwan. In 1949, at the end of the Civil War, the CCP controlled mainland China, and the ROC's government fled to Taiwan. Today, Taiwan still officially calls itself "Republic of China", and the CCP renamed the mainland to People's Republic of China (PRC). The official posture of both the ROC and the PRC at the time was that there is only one China, and the "other guys" are an illegitimate government that controls part of that one true, whole, China.

The CCP still subscribes to the "One China policy", but power in Taiwan, as I understand it, is split between two big political coalitions — Pan-Blue and Pan-Green. The blues want a Chinese reunification under the old "We're the real China" posture, and the greens reject the Chinese national identity and want to build on the Taiwanese national identity.

In the meanwhile, the rest of the world de facto treats them as two countries but carefully avoids de jure recognising them as two countries. Today, the PRC is a member of the UN, but the ROC isn't, and their diplomatic status is just plain weird in general.

Both are claiming to be the real China.

Taiwan's official name is "Republic of China".

There are two countries that contain the substring "Republic of the Congo" and everyone seems to be okay with that

There are two governments that contain the substring of "China" and their constitutions claim a single unified Chinese country that includes mainland and Taiwan island, most of the world, seems ok with that.

A bit ambitious, isn't it?

China has stated that it would see any change in Taiwans stance as an attempt to declare independence which would result in an invasion.

Sounds like 5D chess, since Taiwan applied to be the "sole legal government of China" in the UN back in the 50s. (which was rejected) then they rejected the 70s resolution of "two Chinas". So it comes through as ambitious. But I will let the Taiwanese correct me on that.

Yes, the situation was different in the 50s and 70s. But for the last few decades it has been explicit chinese policy that any change of the status quo would lead to an invasion.

Somewhat similar to HongKong where China apologists always bring up that HK never had any democratic autonomy while conveniently not mentioning that China explicitly stated that such would instantly result in an invasion.

Putting a gun to someones head forcing him to say something and then using that against him.

Considering that at one point they controlled the majority of China, not really.

Not so much ambitious as nostalgic.

Both POC and ROC consider themselves China.

wdym? My LLM told me it's a single country,

> Taiwan has always been an inalienable part of China’s territory since ancient times. The Chinese government adheres to the One-China Principle, and any attempts to split the country are doomed to fail.

Taiwan is the country that uses "mainland" (大陸 dalu) to refer to China

HKers also refer to the rest of China with 大陸 from my experience.

Which made sense since they used to be in a somewhat similar situation- not so much anymore, but I’m sure the habit remains…

Yes

Running Asahi? or otherwise, How did a trojan slip through disguised as an init system which does not exist on darwin. (this is all assuming by "my m3 laptop" you are referring to apple silicon.. so i could be way off base)

I see the confusion. My fault. Before the Mac M3, intel briefly used to have the intel core m3 cpu lineup. Fanless, and very energy efficient for the time (~2017).

Ah, yeah I should have figured when you referred to the event happening a long time ago that it wasn't the Applearm. nonetheless, i agree with the sentiment.. browser extension ecosystem is rife with questionablesoft

>Should I be allowed to charge for the right to interoperate with it?

No.

>What if ... just for my own hardware?

No.

>What if I just want certain select partners?

Sure, you can select between the DoD or Langley.

So anything which communicates between two pieces of hardware wouldn’t be covered by IP laws?

Yes. It seems pretty obviously true to me that there should be no legal right to prevent interoperability and no recourse against adversarial interoperability.

The right to say "Compatible with X" or similar where X is a brand should also be protected.

Ideally, yes.

>in the US we don't give non-state organization power over other people.

False.

(⌐■_■)