This is why I have much respect for the Zed team as they are chasing originality, not just slap something onto VS Code and call it a new IDE.

If both work equally well then why does it matter whether Zed or VSCode is under the hood?

I love Zed code. Sad that Sublime Text is not keeping up.

These are two of the fastest editors, and I use both, but I don't think they're for the same thing: Zed is for multi-file projects with moderate IDE abstractions (Worse than Jetbrains; better than most others); Sublime is for editing one-off files with syntax highlighting.

On the contrary, I am glad that the Sublime team did not fall for the trends and avoided adding AI slop into the editor

Well, was reading the docs for Express, and shouted wtf a couple of times, before seeing this post on HN.

I’m not sure that he will succeed with this move, but his article on Greta is absolute spot on, and I’m saying this as a guy who do not really like Peter

It's spot on to say that Greta Thunberg is the literal manifestation of the biblical antichrist, heralding the end of days?

Agreed. This use case is not mentioned enough.

I actually like the new one, but it’s missing tasks so had to stick with legacy.

I would withdraw from the Iran deal, which was horrible.

Ireland comes to say hello. They somehow let a Russian sub operate freely in their waters.

That sounds more like a one-time failure, though. I am hesitant to see that as a proof that the Irish government does not take the Russian threat seriously.

The poster appears to be Indian from their HN profile. How about we extend some grace for a slight misunderstanding of the nuances of a term that isn't particularly common in day to day discussions?

I see your point, but I think the anger comes from the fact that

1. the title was unneccessarily editorialized, 2. the word gamified is used wrong here, and 3. There was never any good reason to add the word gamified to the title, other than adding a buzzword.

The feedback people give is probably a bit harsh, but I find it understandable. If you don’t know what a term means, don’t use it - especially not if it’s completely unnecessary as in this case.

Agreed. Shouldn't have used the term without proper understanding as it gives a totally different meaning in hindsight. Sorry for that

My suggestion: works on a frecency-based sort algorithm to display good recent answer above outdated one. StackOverflow is still good, just that you have to scroll a bit nowadays.

I think it's actually a really funny and naive assumption that had led them to having an "accepted answer" at all. For a q&a platform that focuses so much on avoiding duplicates, thinking that the first person to ask a particular type of question is an authority not just on accepting an answer at that point in time, but to have it be accepted forever - it just doesn't make any sense.

Some topics are definitely more susceptible to rot than others. Questions like “how do I do X on Ubuntu” tend to have a lot of outdated (yet accepted) answers from a decade ago. There have been a lot of Ubuntu releases since then, with a lot of cumulative changes, and tagging questions as release-specific isn’t universal or reliable.

Never mind that "how do I do X on Ubuntu" was never a programming question in the first place.

Stackexchange != Stackoverflow

Maybe GP meant ServerFault

You can change the accepted answer after the fact.

I've done that. I like to avoid it, if I can, because the original accepted submitter gets a demerit.

If it solves the question, it is exactly the right answer, regardless how much time passed.

The problem is that people mark answers too fast as duplicates, so as time passes and tools develop, questions get closed as duplicates even when the question is slightly different or the answer won't work any longer.

> If it solves the question, it is exactly the right answer, regardless how much time passed.

But that's the crux of the matter - what exactly is this "question" entity?

I'm reminded of Heraclitus's "You cannot step into the same river twice" - if a question is an utterance made by an individual at a given point in time, then it might have "exactly the right answer" that they'd accept, but then it's extremely sensitive to those conditions, and even an identically worded question asked by the same individual a week afterwards might merit them to choose a different accepted answer, because the context for their question changed. For example, something like "What’s the proper way for me to deliver a signal to a different thread?" can have a myriad different contexts, and even if you give a wall of additional information and code, there probably would be something important omitted.

On the other side of this spectrum, we treat questions as a pointer to an underlying platonic idea of the question, which is exactly what StackOverflow say in their guidelines [0]:

> There are many ways to ask the same question, and a user might not be able to find the answer if they're asking it a different way.

Indeed, the closed-as-duplicate label uses the following text make it clear that they approach a question as an idea independent of the context in which it was asked:

> This question already has an answer

So if a question is independent of its questioner and can lead to other questioners being told that their utterance is a duplicate even a decade afterwards, then why should the original have any extra rights in deciding which one answer is the right one? Shouldn't this be owned by the community? At the very least, if a questioner writes a good question that is marked as a duplicate, then they should be given the same access to decide on the accepted answer to the merged question.

[0] https://stackoverflow.com/help/duplicates

They have a Sorted by Trending feature BTW on each question, it's just not the default sort method.