atdixon

A quick clarification / extra context:

This is intentionally experimental and dev-first, not a startup pitch. Games are uploaded as static artifacts and run fully sandboxed in iframes (allow-scripts only) with no cookies or network access.

One unexpectedly hard/fun problem: making infinite scroll work well with lots of <canvas> on mobile (solved by caching/reusing iframes)

I'm not a game developer but writing/porting the (low-fi) reference games on the site took a few hours per game and reminded me how much fun programming can be.

Happy to answer questions or dig into the tech if ppl are curious.

It might help to imagine a different world.

One in which Mary steps out of her room, sees a rose, and absolutely nothing new is added to her understandings.

She already had it all sorted out in her study. In many people’s understanding of “naturalism” that wouldn’t be any surprise.

But that’s not this world.

We don’t have a word for it because we don’t see that color.

I think you’re missing the argument.

We can easily assign words to things we know exist. That’s not the issue.

When we define things (like “naturalism”) we are invoking symbols and their semantics, all the stuff Mary presumably has access to in her room.

In her room, Mary already understands subjective experience, the brain mechanics behind it, etc.

The realization that there is more outside of Mary’s room suggests that our conceptualizations are limited / not accurate.

If that’s the agreed case how can anyone cling to a universal “naturalism” with a straight face?

With Mary’s room, haven’t we already accepted that formal statements are incomplete - and therefore would be silly to call universal?

You’re assuming the consumer is the one producing batches.

Beautiful!

Would you ever consider building/porting this to nostr?

https://nostr.com/

Can you just add a random query param value to bust the cache?

Exactly. There’s a running joke when talking about code style of “Rich Hickey’s Java” - as the exemplar of weird style. (Which it is if you ever glance at core Clojure’s code base.) But RH in my mind is the epitome of one who understands real practitioner productivity.

Bad analogy. The flat earth theory isn’t novel.

https://www.chronos-desk.com/

Personal tasks with estimates and focused on “local first”/desktop usage.

To Webmaster: How much $$ to jump first in line?

A common point is being made in the threads here: "The downside of Clojure is that you need good, wise developers..."

The converse of this is that good, wise developers are going to (ultimately) _demand_ Clojure.

What I mean by this:

I was a Java programmer for years and increasingly started writing code in a more functional, immutable, dynamic style with the occasional need for meta-programming -- for the sheer need of being more productive and writing more robust code.

Yes, you can write functional, immutable, dynamic, code in Java and do meta-programming in Java!

It's just somewhat cumbersome and prickly.

Enter: Clojure.

I've seen many an 'unwise' programmer make just as much a mess of Java systems as people are suggesting they've seen in Clojure projects. It may be simply that Java slows you/your team down enough so that the messes of unwise programmers are just made more slowly.

But one wonders if this is really a win: you're probably also delivering your business value more slowly, as well.

:thinking-face:

A relevant paper to discuss alongside this one: https://www.cs.umd.edu/~gasarch/BLOGPAPERS/social.pdf

Social Processes and Proofs of Theorems and Programs

Even rigorous mathematics requires social processes to become 'reliable', ie truthful.

Exactly. This is the brand of neutered, ludic probability on which The Black Swan is a holistic dump. Very ironic indeed that it leads with Taleb as the inspiration.

Your engagement of the plot in any manipulable way can only come if you are not simply observing. So if you find this happening, you're doing it wrong.

Similarly I tried to get myself to exercise for years and years.

I must have discovered the same approach as this author.

I stopped any kind of thinking about it and focused on observing myself drive to the gym, get in the pool, do the strokes, etc.

If my verbal ("thinking") centers of my brain needed to say something I would only let them describe what I was doing ("You are driving to the gym", "you are putting your swimsuit on", etc.)

Never did I let any other "thinking" or "reasoning" enter the picture. It was all observation. I was able to keep an exercise routine for years this way.

---

I think her post fails in the last section "Do the easiest part first". This is too much thinking, reasoning and I think will backfire. She should delete this section. I think this idea is hard for people to understand. You want ZERO REASONING to come into the picture when the time comes, not even a shred. Only pure observation of you doing the task.

One very helpful thing to understand wrt this idea of "tacit knowledge" especially in terms of understanding and managing personal relationships...

You or someone you know may very well become aware of (i.e., _come to know_) what are your personal defects (insecurities, unproductive behavioral predispositions, etc) -- but this is in no way _at all_ means that you will be able to _change_.