HN user
indiscipline.github.io thirdhemisphere.studio
Even if you operate only by the given definition, it directly states one is a subset of the other.
Given that you're just selectively nitpicking by now, I don't think you're really trying to engage in a meaningful conversation, so I'm done. Thanks anyway, you've prompted me to reflect upon many topics and verbalize some things that usually stay internal.
Oh, man, taking a win when the opponent concedes ground is no fun at all, right?
So you are in fact claiming you were joking?
Never claimed so. The first message was making fun of the title (which should be obvious even to those struggling with nuance comprehension). It's, BTW, not exactly the same thing as joking. Everything posted further was pretty serious.
instead of arguing about English
"Arguing about English" paints my part in the discussion in an overly aggressive light. I was mostly answering direct questions and disproving points that were aimed at me or my arguments.
For multiple messages in a row, there’s no indication you were making fun.
It wasn't the theme of the discussion, reread it and look at what we were actually talking about. If you didn't parse my original message as playful, then, surely, the the fault is mine. I'll work on my eloquence. But I'd rather make a poor attempt at humour and let it fail than keep on repeating "this wasn't serious!" in every subsequent message.
Because transplants for autism isn’t ambiguous to native speakers
Firstly, this is overgeneralization that you can't possibly posit as a fact, unless you're a linguist that happens to have the stats on hand.
Secondly, the crowd here is rather diverse, and I bet non-natives are not a negligible minority. At least for some of them the awkwardness of the condensed form chosen for the title is pretty obvious, as it was for me.
The bottom line here is the comprehension (including native) is never deterministic, but is context-driven. Temporary alternative parses (even if it converges to a specific interpretation with later context) is an established phenomenon which, to my taste, is a great source of fun. Though I admit this wasn't nearly my best attempt.
I didn’t mean to be condescending
Then I don't believe you've succeeded. The problem is that you're arguing against a stronger claim than I’m making, whilst being just a bit too assertive, degrading the debate to lifestyle advice, etc.
---
Regarding your multilingual examples, you're most likely not native to a Romance language, because you're missing the distinction between, for example, "por" and "para" which do not translate directly to English "for", so your examples aren't as effective as you probably hoped. "Ir al medico por dolor" translates better to "to go to the doctor because of pain", not "for pain". Same with "wegen", it's literally "because of", not "for".
I only meant to contradict your apparent insistence that ‘transplants for autism’ is easily misunderstood, because it’s not.
Never said "easily". However, you seem to be adamant on dismissing the two main points I repeatedly tried to get across and which are the reason I made fun of the title in the first place:
1. "Transplant" is a procedure or the result of thereof, it does not lexically encode remediation to the same extent "treatment" or "medication" do. You can transplant a third arm to a human, this won't be considering a health-improving procedure. To rephrase, "transplant" is not inherently therapeutic but is always an intrusive procedure.
2. Again, not everyone conceptualizes an "Autism" of an unknown severity as a condition in need of a treatment involving body-intrusive procedures!
These two facts make the "X for Z" not reliably triggering the "ibuprofen for headache" reading. Unfortunately, this doesn't happen for you so you just dismiss this fact and keep on pushing, instead of admitting there can be ambiguity. You'll surely agree, that it's the medicalized context doing the disambiguation for the concise form, not the syntax itself!
Consider a parallel linguistic construct: "implant for mind control". Would you still argue it's unambiguously "for countering mind control"?
Never claimed I did. My first message, however, literally says the title is hilarious or outrageous, depending on your personality, all due to the ambiguity. I tried to make fun of it, which landed obviously flat. Well, what a shame.
You're really trying a bit too hard to prove a point, being just slightly condescending in the process, giving strangers life advice all while missing to address the specific argumentative points where you happened do be factually mistaken.
Mayhaps it's your idea of fun, then happy to entertain you.
in English and many other languages as well - pretty much all Germanic languages
Absolutely not. In German itself it's "gegen" - "against". In French and Spanish you definitely wouldn't just omit "treatment" from "traitement de/pour"/"tratamiento de/por" and expect the meaning to not change, and both sometimes would use "contra", though less likely.
You seem to be failing to grasp that someone who says something is “for” a problem
See above, the special-case medical reading of the construction triggers when the object is unequivocally considered a problem.
If someone's fighting anything, it's you, who fail to grasp that the title could actually read ambiguously, depending on your disposition towards Autism and conceptualization of a transplantation procedure.
Lear to embrace ambiguity as a source of humour and have fun, instead of trying to tell people they use a language wrong.
A retina transplant is for vision, not for blindness.
And you'd lose the bet, in my case that would be a word that dual-serves as a directional preposition meaning "away"/"from" and depending on the situation it's an opposite of "for", but not exactly "against", closer to "for dealing with smth"/"for solving smth.".
If you think more about it, perhaps the stumble is understandable, if you conceptualize Autism not simply a disorder requiring treatment, but a type of neurodiversity. Then the intuition of interpreting the "for" as the "X for Y" conventional medical syntax does not trigger and the title reads awkward.
The keyword there is "treatment". It can be "cure" or "remedy" or something like that. But the title has "transplants".
The contrast is obvious, though I'm not native, so YMMV.
Absolutely outrageous/hilarious clickbait title. It's not for autism but totally opposite.
This is cute, but the UI is uncannily not there (I think there were multiple attempts of designing the XP for web already which looked more authentic).
But my biggest gripe is, why represent it as a file system with WordPad displaying HTML? I get the idea for media, but not for the articles.
It's pretty obvious that Wikipedia should be a single CHM file. That would be nice and much more immersive.
You're saying your experience with GS is even worse than with eBay, right? How can it be?
I don't see how your argument makes sense. It's all just bits of entropy in the end, be it knowing a port to connect to or a character in your key.
Considering its ubiquitous and regular consumption in general population, doesn't alcohol shift the balance in favour of ibuprofen?
Also, possible blood clotting or stomach issues sound scary, but Aspirin has similar (opposite) issues. Pharmacists regularly push its combinations with Acetominophen (which has, of course, synergetic bonuses, but is not the reason) under multitude of brands with a hefty premium when people ask for either one. So in many situations you need to consider the added risks from Aspirin too.
Ideally, I'd like to have an optimized strategies of using all three of the aforementioned substances for common situations. Like, is rotating ibuprofen/acetominophen during the day safer than consuming just one?
I'm all for Win32, but those odd-shapes and custom skins were the precursors and the normalizing precedent for the current default mentality of "visual identity = branding" that's been killing desktop computing experience for years and is one of the reasons we have to endure reacts, electrons and multitude of half-baked widget libraries that consist of things looking like no particular control but all feature blurry text rendering, flaky accessibility, negative information density and their own special sets of bugs.
Unless you're building a Blender or an Ardour or, I don't know, a trading platform or a game, an individualized GUI should be the last of your priorities.
Sadly, the hang was deterministic:
Huh, someone's in it for the thrill of the hunt, I see...
Yeah, I don't generally live in MC to the same extent I do in DC when I'm on Windows.
I rarely do anything besides the basics (F5/F6) when managing files in MC, and for advanced stuff, like using rsync/rclone for moving files, I mostly use the usermenu.
It's perfectly valid to be second- and further-level inspired and even dislike/reject some aspects of the predecessors.
Isn't this the point if TUI/GUI that you don't have to? Common things should be shortcutted, some accessible from menus for discoverability.
Command entering is just one if the "modes", and not necessarily the default one.
If shortcuts are limited to special keys and combos, this frees plane input for commands, but I personally prefer list filtering by default.
If I could code with a piece of music playing in the background and not lose focus means it's not worth listening at all.
Very rarely I use custom-filtered (brownish) noise to help with isolation. Perhaps some kind of Ambient or New Age would work too in such situations, but things I like in those genres require attention and not paying it would be absolutely disrespectful.
I listen to all kinds of music at my dayjob but only during specific activities that do not require much contemplation and I can mostly flow with the music and do the work in the background.
Though, I'm a musician and sound engineer, so my relationships with music in general might be a bit special.
This might be not so far from the truth, if you count total loc written and rewritten during the development cycle, not just the final number.
Not everybody is Dijkstra.
This is exactly why ReStructured Text is better/worse.
For a layperson it's clear that it's either "Writings" and "Talks", or "Readings" and "'Listenings", but CPP profeciency is in an inverse relation with being apt in taxonomy, it looks like.
Thanks for the list.
The key insight in the third sentence?
... CRDTs for version control, which is long overdue but hasn’t happened yet
Pijul happened and it has hundreds - perhaps thousands - of hours of real expert developer's toil put in it.
Not that Bram is not one of those, but the post reads like you all know what.
At least both get paid in not-pretend money.
This is a google problem, but only secondary.
The crux of the matter is that there's nothing that protects an open project besides reputation, and nowadays in the digital space it can be cheaply farmed.
Laws could help, but they only work when you undertake purposeful actions to be covered by them, like register a trademark, and it's never cheap.
Imagine you're in a local band playing shows. It's 3 month old and you have no issued records. A second band tighter with venues takes your name and starts performing under your moniker. You have no money to take that to court and good luck making a case. You can't do anything besides screaming on the web or, don't know, kicking a few butts. You change your name.
If by AI you mean the LLM-based tools common now, then I don't want the commits in PRs I'm going to review to bring any more noise than they already do. The human operator is responsible for every line, like they always were.
If by AI you mean non-supervised, autonomous conscience (as I believe the term has to be reserved for), then the answer is again no, as it's as responsible for the quality of its PRs as humans.
If the thing writing code is the former, but there's no human or responsible representative of the latter in the loop, then the code shouldn't be even suggested for consideration in a project where any people do participate. In such case there's no point in storing any additional information as the code itself doesn't have any value (besides electricity wasted to create it) and can be substituted on demand.
Commit comments are generally underused, though, as a result of how forges work, but that's another discussion.
Why shouldn't this be a simple wrapper to tie Delta to some kind of file browser or a thing like television[1]?
Years ago replacing Notepad with an alternative was a given and everybody had their favourite. Before UTF everywhere you needed at least proper character encoding handling, other features followed.
Surprisingly, some of the projects such as AkelPad are still alive.
Win32 made things easier, as well as things like Delphi and Scintilla later.
Just checked my archives, and my own naive but functioning attempt measures whole whopping 36520 bytes, though not without the help of an executable packer, which was a fashion then.
Mostly works fine under Wine, though it is about the legal US drinking age.
It's not polite to deny a country the agency to backslide on their own.
The corrupt class is, of course, following the oppression guide, so graciously provided and field-tested by their northern neighbour, rather diligently.
It would be unwise to overstate their (elite's) autonomy, considering economical and cultural ties on all levels, though.
I sincerely hope it's just me having trust issues.
Looks like Andreas is a mighty fine engineer, but he's even better entrepreneur. Doesn't matter if intentional or not, but he managed to create and lead a rather visible passion project, attract many contributors and use that project's momentum to detach Ladybird into a separate endeavor with much more concrete financial prospects.
The Jakt -> Swift -> Rust pivots look like the same thing on a different level. The initial change to Swift was surely motivated by potential industry support gain (i believe it was a dubious choice from purely engineering standpoint).
It's awe-inspiring to see how a person can carve a job for himself, leverage hobbyists'/hackers' interest and contributions, attract industry attention and sponsors all while doing the thing he likes (assuming, browsers are his thing) in a controlling position.
Can't fully rationalize the feeling, but all of this makes me slightly wary. Doesn't make it less cool to observe from a side, though.
In Nim too, although, the author doesn't like it much.