Can someone who has migrated from vim to nvim recommend a guide for doing so, or if it’s really just as simple as changing to init.vim? I’m also wondering if folks keep compatibility layers in dotfiles repos, or anything like that.
If I recall correctly (I used nvim a while ago, I think the latest was 0.2), you can start by just changing your .vimrc to init.vim, and then go from there.
I don’t think it is malicious? I read it as just “we need to make sure we educate our future workers with skills that will actually be relevant in the future”.
This is interesting… I publish in AAS journals, and also do a good amount of software development, and I appreciate the level to which they’re addressing this. In particular, it’s really, really refreshing to see them mostly shying away from astro-specific solutions to the problem.
With the emphasis on collaboration already inherent in peer reviewed papers (though reproduction isn’t always done) and the equivalent inherent collaboration in software development, I’m curious about something. (This is also a reflection of my being so far removed from daily research.) What kind of solutions did you imagine to be “astro-specific”?
Can someone who has migrated from vim to nvim recommend a guide for doing so, or if it’s really just as simple as changing to
init.vim? I’m also wondering if folks keep compatibility layers in dotfiles repos, or anything like that.We added a skeleton init.vim so you can just use your normal vimrc when we started using nvim: https://github.com/braintreeps/vim_dotfiles/blob/416912bb64a034241a40906693c0298dc5d8ea49/config/nvim/init.vim
Then you can just start vim or nvim depending on if you want to shave yaks or to be classically productive.
If I recall correctly (I used nvim a while ago, I think the latest was 0.2), you can start by just changing your
.vimrctoinit.vim, and then go from there.It looks recently sixel support was added for gnome-terminal. Not sure when it’ll make its way to most distributions, though.
This is a welcome bit of news as I had just asked a friend about this exact thing!
The part I have heard highlighted as being particularly worrisome is Sec 7(d), which ties together STEM education and the department of defense.
I don’t think it is malicious? I read it as just “we need to make sure we educate our future workers with skills that will actually be relevant in the future”.
This is interesting… I publish in AAS journals, and also do a good amount of software development, and I appreciate the level to which they’re addressing this. In particular, it’s really, really refreshing to see them mostly shying away from astro-specific solutions to the problem.
With the emphasis on collaboration already inherent in peer reviewed papers (though reproduction isn’t always done) and the equivalent inherent collaboration in software development, I’m curious about something. (This is also a reflection of my being so far removed from daily research.) What kind of solutions did you imagine to be “astro-specific”?