Much (but not all) of what you are looking for exists in the reStructuredText [1] space. Sphinx [2] is an SSG focused on technical writing about software that you may find worth exploring.
Also, the scientific text community has been pushing MyST [3] which is an attempt to take some of the best ideas of reStructuredText and reapply them to Markdown-style syntax as a baseline. The MyST tools are a lot more recent and don't have the maturity just yet of Sphinx (including the larger ecosystem such as SaaS hosts like readthedocs).
That look reminds me so much of Steam's original UI from the time when it was very Windows 95-inspired, too, but used different color palettes, especially a lot more greens. There's not much of Steam left that will show up with that original UI style (but it still feels like there's some lesser known dialogs that still can show up in that style), so these days it is better known as the "Counter-Strike 1 UI".
It's interesting to point out that almost all of Microsoft's "augmentations" to git have been open source and many of them have made it into git upstream already and come "ready to configure" in git today ("conical" sparse checkouts, a lot of steady improvements to sparse checkouts, git commit-graph, subtle and not-so-subtle packfile improvements, reflog improvements, more). A lot of it is opt-in stuff because of backwards compatibility or extra overhead that small/medium-sized repos won't need, but so much of it is there to be used by anyone, not just the big corporations.
I think it is neat that at least one company with mega-repos is trying to lift all boats, not just their own.
Density follows infrastructure more than infrastructure follows density. Building a station in a place is more likely to spring up new businesses (and residences) around it. It's not a guarantee and there are a lot of variables in play, but the same reason train stations wouldn't remain "20 minute drive to get to where you are going" are basically the same reasons on average most Interstate stops aren't "20 minute drive to get to where you are going" either.
The density map of the US already resembles the US highway map. Many of the few pockets that don't are explainable with old passenger train maps overlaid on top of that.
Just adding passenger train-only routes on top of existing interstate highways, stopping only at existing exits, would go a long way to service a lot of the US population. It would also presumably spur more walkability efforts at a number of those exits if it was also a passenger train stop.
When they started getting rid of passenger service had a lot less to do with losing ridership and money and lot more that cargo contracts paid a lot more and with a lot more regularity. The "Robber Barons" get that nickname for a lot of reasons, but one of them was using public land and eminent domain tactics under the "public utility" excuse of providing passenger service for a time for an area, while negotiating for the shortest possible passenger service requirements and the least possible public oversight of their use of once public land, because they knew all along the real, big money was in cargo. A lot of passenger services ended to the day of passenger service requirements contracts ending, even if they were profitable and had high ridership.
The scam was in from the beginning. The car helped exacerbate the problem and the train companies made big fusses about all the lost ridership to the car, as things went along, but even at the beginning a lot of the US rail companies were built on the knowledge that cargo was lucrative and passenger travel the necessary trojan horse to pickup land for cheap.
I kinda doubt that the RR's - especially the long-established ones of the north-east - would have spent the vast sums on opulent passenger terminals, fast luxury trains, and high-density passenger service if passenger service was merely a legal necessity for their freight businesses.
Flip-side, I have heard that the phase-out RMS ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_Mail_Service ) cut the RR's passenger train revenue by about 1/3. Few business models can survive a 1/3 revenue cut.
BTW - at the high end, airplanes were at least as damaging (to passenger rail) as cars.
> I kinda doubt that the RR's - especially the long-established ones of the north-east
I was talking most specifically about the early "oil rush" ones in a lot of "rollover country" (or yes, "flyover country" being the modern term because indeed, air travel also disrupted train travel a lot) that didn't live long enough to be long-established, in the North-East, or bother much at all with opulent terminals and luxury cars. Many of those companies really did exist just long enough for eminent domain to do its job and launder public lands into private hands that cared a lot more about cargo contracts than any of the places the trains stopped along the way.
Most of those rail company names are also kind of lost to time, too, and the tracks are owned by cargo-oriented mega-conglomerates like CSX today. Not to pick on any one in particular by naming names, but also the easiest one to anecdotally name because it owns the dilapidated station I regularly walk past that is today an awful, unsafe shelter for the unhoused that sometimes cargo trains sit on top of for hours at a time, and wasn't particularly "opulent" (outdoor and entirely exposed to the elements) even during the exactly 10 years it operated as a passenger station. (It closed to passenger travel before both most highways had been built and air travel became common, weird huh? Surely just a coincidence that 10 years was the required passenger contract by the eminent domain seizures that opened the land for rail development?)
Dolly's amusement parks company Herschend took over operations of Kentucky Kingdom and it has been very interesting watching the care being put into that park, especially with comparison to when it was managed by Six Flags. Kentucky Kingdom is not yet "Dollywood North" by any stretch of imagination, but you can see enough of the care and emphasis on friendliness that you can kind of see the expected trajectory at this point. I've found it encouraging to watch.
That's great to hear. With Six Flags being such a polar opposite to the kind of care Dollywood represents, especially.
I'm still sad that Cedar Fair sold out to Six Flags, because they had at least a modestly better reputation. Six Flags in my opinion has long been run in a fashion that makes private equity proud: Reduce cap-ex to the minimum level, minimize cleaning, maintenance, staffing, etc. while extracting every last dollar possible for short-term gain.
Yeah, Six Flags basically bankrupted Kentucky Kingdom before they left, sold off a lot of rides and left many in states of disrepair that were hard to come back from. (It didn't help that the bidding process to buy the park out of that bankruptcy involved the Hoosier owners of a rival regional park that eventually gave the impression they may have intentionally been sandbagging the process to stretch out the time the park was left non-operational and without active maintenance.)
It's hard not to worry about the Cedar Fair parks under that sort of management having seen it at its worst first hand once already. Kings Island has a big place in my heart and I saw the Six Flags takeover with some grimacing from the viewpoint of a tiny, tiny shareholder in Cedar Fair.
But also yeah, trying to come back from the CapEx problems Kentucky Kingdom was saddled with by Six Flags is a part of where I have a lot of respect for what Herschend has been doing at the park. It's slow, but steady improvement so far, with a CapEx plan that doesn't seem that aggressive, but also takes into account how much was needed and most importantly seems to be planning for the long term again (versus Six Flags' short-term mentality).
Having reluctantly used both, Bing's Copilot seems a lot more grounded on current search results below it versus Google's Gemini seems a lot more likely to conduct its own searches from a different query than what was asked, so also a lot more likely to hallucinate things or to provide answers that seem way different from the rest of the search page.
In terms of "best on the market" for AI search, I know that I am much more likely to trust the one that seems more like a direct summary of the stuff the search engine is traditionally responding with (and presumably has been well tuned in the last several decades) versus the one more likely to make stuff up or to leave the realm of what you are actually asking for some other search it thinks is better for you.
Though admittedly that's a very personal judgment call; some people want the assistant to search for "what they really mean" rather than "what they asked for". It's also a lot of gut vibes from how these AIs write about their research and some of that can be hallucinations and lies and "prompt optimization" as much or more than any sort of "best on the market" criteria.
Early Google PageRank was notorious for how much additional trust a given page had based on many links back to it existed. It was why certain bloggers had massive ranks early on, because they would be in big webs of conversations with lots of high quality links out and back in.
Early SEO did weaponize that and broke it for everyone.
I loved the book "Real World Haskell" [1] when it first came out in 2008. It feels like a shame it hasn't aged well and there hasn't been an updated edition since then. Especially because it was focused on things like "here's how you build example web services" as a good place to discuss everything else by having the end goal of the book's "narrative" structure be real world things you might build. It may still help to glance at a little, but things have advanced so much in the decade and a half since the book was written it is hard to recommend, but it still feels like there should be a book like it updated for current day to be out there to more heartily recommend. If there is one I don't know of it, but I haven't followed Haskell as much as I'd like in my professional career.
This is what happens when you let Mathematicians name things on chalkboards. They don't want to run out of chalk and they get tired of spelling whole words very easily so they use short names and silly symbols. The name foldl' is "just" "fold left prime". Remember ' means "prime" from calculus class and thinking that was silly even then? Accidentally infected Haskell at a young age.
Yeah it's definitely unusual to allow ' to be part of the name of a variable, especially considering that it is, like C, the quote for character types.
In Haskell's case that is indirectly Lisp's fault. Lisp heard of Algol (C's design-by-committee "grandparent" on the family tree) identifier restrictions and thought they were silly. (I think Lisp is also often classified as Haskell's great-grandparent on the family tree? Lisp -> Scheme -> ML -> Haskell, I think?) As with most of that FP family the boundary between "operator" and "identifier" is real thin to nonexistent.
Aside: I've got half a feeling you could implement an APL-like directly in Haskell as a DSL using Unicode-named functions. I've seen Unicode Haskell files that look like APL (and GHC supports a surprising amount of that almost out of the box, as I recall).
Also, the scientific text community has been pushing MyST [3] which is an attempt to take some of the best ideas of reStructuredText and reapply them to Markdown-style syntax as a baseline. The MyST tools are a lot more recent and don't have the maturity just yet of Sphinx (including the larger ecosystem such as SaaS hosts like readthedocs).
[1] https://docutils.sourceforge.io/rst.html
[2] https://www.sphinx-doc.org/en/master/index.html
[3] https://mystmd.org/
reply