Earlier quoted context omitted.
In no way do I want to come off as rude with this comment, but to me what you are saying is not at all different from "when I was young I used to work out and eat healthy... a couple of decades later, I just fund it all so exhausting". Customizing your computer environment is good. Eating healthy is good. None of those need to end up in a "rabbit hole". Everyone can be tired of life and give up due to exhaustion, but…
> Customizing your computer environment is good. Eating healthy is good. One is a practical endeavor of great importance for mind function, body function, longevity, performance, etc. The other is something between slightly better ergonomics (in a non-scientific ad-hoc way), tinkering, and bike-shedding. People have found again and again that "customizing your computer environment" is not a good in itself, but a mean…
The author of the article customized his environment so opening a file no longer froze his editor.
I wouldn't classify that either as "slightly better ergonomics" nor "tinkering" nor "bike shedding".
He had the discipline to improve his favorite editor. Good for him.
Emacs is obviously a very powerful environment for people who know how to use it. I applaud the author for documenting how he fixed this.
The only difference between emacs and many other open source software is here you can easily solve bugs in your config file, instead of filing a pull request or submitting a patch to some git repo. The first you call "tinkering" and look down upon. The other I assume you approve of? But why the double standard?