sctb

Interesting! Looks like the IDE itself is written in Coalton (https://github.com/coalton-lang/coalton/tree/main/mine) and you can either bring your own terminal or use the standalone version which uses Tauri and Xterm.js.

(2015) More information here: https://okmij.org/ftp/Haskell/extensible.

I am still struggling to understand the way in which many people naturally form casual connections with others. [...] I perceive a lot of confusion here - and in my own life - about personal wants and needs being met, meeting someone else’s needs, where one’s personal boundaries lie, and how we effectively communicate them - or not.

I think this is a really interesting question. Speaking just from my perspective and experience, casual connections can form naturally from the basis of having no specific intention to connect. You simply give your attention to the other person without any preconceived needs or wants. Maybe the interaction is brief and superficial, maybe it goes somewhere deeper, who knows. But either way you get to experience the real, rubber-hits-the-road connection of being present with the other.

An important understanding is that it's possible to genuinely connect without being entangled in any way.

You're right that sensory issues make up a small (optional) part of the diagnostic criteria for ASD under the DSM-5. And I agree that "autism" in popular discourse seems to be very flexible and inclusive, but the medical diagnostic criteria are much more specific. When someone does meet these criteria, there's something going on that isn't just a collection of unrelated peculiarities. This seems to be supported by the very high heritability of diagnosed ASD.

I would agree with you that there are issues caused by the wide range of presentations. It seems as though there's a tension between differentiation and unification at the various levels of scientific research, social understanding, social accommodation, etc. I expect things will get teased out over time.

DSM summary: https://www.cdc.gov/autism/hcp/diagnosis/index.html

DSM and ICD summary: https://www.autism.org.uk/advice-and-guidance/topics/diagnos...

ICD-11 direct: https://icd.who.int/browse/2024-01/mms/en#437815624

I think the word "spectrum" is reasonable, as it implies a broad range. Or it's analogous to the rainbow with a variety of colours.

But what people consistently misunderstand is that there is a fundamental dichotomy at the diagnostic level. Speaking from the perspective of the DSM, which I prefer because it's at least concrete and has medical relevance in North America, you meet the criteria for Autism Spectrum Disorder ("on the spectrum") or you do not ("not on the spectrum").

In other words, the diagnostic criteria themselves do not constitute a spectrum, especially not a linear one. Maybe people are confusing this with the DSM's three levels of support needs.

A Sanskrit transliteration (IAST) editing mode for Emacs, including a dictionary and Devanāgarī rendering: https://github.com/sctb/sanskrit.

There is no one without a uniquely narrow perspective who could possibly see a full picture.

I love to miss people. I think missing is a complete and beautiful expression of love, just as much as having.

In clinical contexts, cognitive tests are used for diagnostic purposes. They are important to determine exactly what sort of ongoing care and support the person needs in order to thrive. In these sorts of contexts, it's not hard to imagine the utility in knowing someone's cognitive ability. It's also not arbitrary—a good cognitive test will give insight into the ability to perform everyday cognitive tasks.

Strictly speaking, any intervention other than exercise is going to give you a subset of the total stimulation. A drug acting on the tissues directly would bypass the neurological component, for example.

If the idea is to avoid the effort of exercise, perhaps it would be worth considering the possibility that the effort itself is essential.

Of course, they certainly do. But this article is really something else! I don't care if it's written by AI or not, but it has a rhetorical style that relies much more on rhythm than on connecting the conceptual dots. Like a TED talk or a revivalist preacher.

I would suggest that, like many things, that line is dependent on all of the details of the situation. Because all of those subtle details (e.g. the mood, receptiveness, familiarity, interest, etc. of the other person and yourself) matter, you need to be able to take those in and respond accordingly. So you could say that a prerequisite for connection is something like "presence", the ability to give your full attention to the interaction itself. Or you could say that this is actually the essence of connection, and the conversation is an expression of that togetherness of presence.

You added the "just". Becoming a better person is probably the best thing you can shoot for, though obviously it's not a trivial process and requires significant effort and intention. I mean, what else can you do? You're the one that has to live with yourself.

Even if the whole world is going to shit, if you desire the happiness and wellbeing of others, as a deep internal orientation, this itself is its own form of happiness which is not subject to anything external. Since this thread already has Buddhist vibes, you don't have to take my word for it and can refer to metta (loving-kindness) as its own practice in addition to mindfulness.

Obviously there are many flavours of Buddhism and many flavours of Christianity, but the author is simply relating his own experience. I really don't see how cherry picking or cultural appropriation could possibly apply here.

It's hard to convey precisely what I mean, of course, but to try to clarify further I would say the emotion is experienced on behalf of the object itself in a direct way that does not involve my personal sense of self. I do not mind a dull knife at all, I feel no personal emotion in that sense. Either I sharpen it because it's mine or not. That's neutral.

So it's much closer to object personification because it's the same mechanism by which I empathize with other people, animals, etc. In my description I've tried to generalize because to me it's not accurate to say that I feel the knife is sad, but the experience is almost as if that were the case.

I'm not fooled whatsoever into thinking LLMs are human, but I am polite in how I interact with them because the language that I use impacts my experience. Same goes with how I interact with anything, linguistically or not.

I don't have access to the full text, but based on the abstract I think it's likely that I relate to this phenomenon (I am autistic).

My experience is not so much the attribution of human characteristics to non-human objects, but I understand why this might be the only accessible language of expression. For me, if a useful object is damaged or otherwise loses its usefulness through neglect or malice, I experience something like an emotional response. A good example would be a dull knife. There's something "sad" about an object whose nature or purpose it is to be sharp to lose or lack that sharpness.

Or perhaps a more subtle example would be a room whose contents are haphazard or in disarray. In that situation I would sense a lack of care or attention and there might be an emotional feeling that these objects had not been respected or appreciated.

It's (usually) easy for most people to care about other people. It's a little less easy, though still pretty common, for people to care about animals. The further away from recognizably human you get, the less people seem to care: e.g. insects, plants, bacteria, viruses, etc. For me there is something that "scales" down all the way to inanimate objects.

From Wang's note to employees (https://x.com/alexandr_wang/status/1933328165306577316):

Today's investment also allows us to give back in recognition of your hard work and dedication to Scale over the past several years. The proceeds from Meta's investment will be distributed to those of you who are shareholders and vested equity holders, while maintaining the opportunity to continue participating in our future growth as ongoing equity holders. The exceptional team here has been the key to our success, so l'm thrilled to be able to return the favor with this meaningful liquidity distribution.

The way to do it would be to port the original Arc release (http://arclanguage.org/) to Clarc.

If you're looking for volunteers... :)

I think MzScheme is just the core (non-GUI) part of PLT Scheme, which was renamed to Racket.

Also, I believe pg started implementing Arc on Scheme48 based on mailing list activity at the time. I've always been curious about the switch to PLT!

FTA:

This is only true of writing that's used to develop ideas, though.

Descriptive writing, especially for fiction, seems out of scope.

Even this proposed feature is very similar to Common Lisp packages.

If you're still interested: https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/elisp/Le.... Basically modern Emacs Lisp works like Common Lisp.

Welcome, Tom! Sometimes I can't believe how good we have it here. Thank you both very much.

Yanis Varoufakis has been writing about this with a mostly neutral, inquisitive tone. Recently:

https://unherd.com/2025/02/why-trumps-tariffs-are-a-masterpl...

https://unherd.com/2025/04/will-liberation-day-transform-the...

To add to this: I think pg does drill down, but what he does more than most is make the effort to bring those insights back up.

Explicitly yes:

I mean new things in a very general sense. Newton's physics was a good new thing. Indeed, the first version of this principle was to have good new ideas. But that didn't seem general enough: it didn't include making art or music, for example, except insofar as they embody new ideas.

I remember encountering this file in Red Hat Linux circa 2000: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Linus-linux.ogg. It sounds much clearer nowadays, but still to my ear it's roughly halfway between lih-nucks and lee-noox.

My general understanding is that "mind" is an objective concept; people have minds that cognize and think and learn and so on. Some minds are apparently more capable of those things than others. When speaking about intelligence, it makes sense to associate that with the mind.

Consciousness, on the other hand, is (even) less well-defined and is usually considered to be subjective. Being subjective, it tends to resist all of the usual objective approaches of description and analysis. Hard problem and all that.

It's like Cypher in the Matrix writing about the relative benefits of changing his dinner from steak to something cheaper.

Now how can we take the rest of this comment seriously with a sentence like this?