4
points
tux1968
Joined 6,613 karma
[ my public key: https://keybase.io/loops; my proof: https://keybase.io/loops/sigs/TxZL-6pdOQf3K_FQdcQikw-NVXsyd-8nWiAX4ToKE4k ]
- tux1968I'm sure you're being honest about your intent, but a glancing read of your previous comment sounded categorical, to my ear at least, "And they've all been proven false."
- It's hard to know how these pieces fit together, especially if you have a fuzzy mental-model of the objectives and potential benefits. Is there a gentle introduction you'd recommend?
- Isn't this more of a theoretical problem, rather than a practical one? In what situations do you want people to discover your key? You create a key pair for Github, upload the public key, and you're done; you can securely communicate with Github. Nobody ever has to discover it. Do they?
- Does it? Why do they play perfectly fine after being downloaded?
- Do you use Firefox on Linux, too? 4K Videos freeze so often for me, I don't even try watching them online, and always just download them with yt-dlp. It doesn't bother me enough to give Chrome a try, but maybe that'd make a difference.
- Linux can exist because there is a huge industry producing inexpensive open hardware. If that industry transitions to producing only locked down hardware, it will hurt Linux and all open source software. Be careful what you wish for.
- It's also a bit depressing that everyone is still using the slower iptables, when nftables has been in the kernel for over a decade.
- Well, you could use a disposable legal identity. Say a hobby site, about bowling.
- > Honestly, you't not even trying to
Why do you think that? I've been listening to what you say. But again, you haven't exactly proven that operating on the single-most-recent movement (which as I understand it, also defines the selection) is the thing that you want to operate on the most often, rather than the convenience of being able to use the flexibility of multiple movements to define a selection.
Anyway, many people do claim that an editor isn't the most important thing, and that thinking takes a lot more time than the operation itself, and that therefore Notepad would often be sufficient. What those people don't really appreciate is the ability to operate on multiple lines at once, not a single selection, but across vast swathes of the text being edited. When your thinking is done, and needs to be applied to every single line of the file, you'd much rather have Vim than Notepad. But in such a case Helix wouldn't offer much, if any, advantage over Vim.
You seem emotionally attached to this in a way that my skepticism provokes, so we can drop the debate. People should use whatever they prefer; no harm done.
- > This is a game changer for all those other times.
Is it though? I honestly don't understand what the big deal is. The original contention was that the benefit was in offering selection-then-action, unlike Vi. And then when it's pointed out that Vim actually offers selection-then-action as well, there is a new assertion that it's the particular WAY that Helix offers selection-then-action that is key.
To my mind, selection-then-action is provided by Vim if you want it. Maybe it's a few extra keystrokes sometimes, because it's not the default mode, as it is in Helix, but the main concept (ability to think in object-then-verb) is available in both, if that's the way you prefer to think.
- The details are different, but they're both select-then-act. Admittedly, I've never used Helix, but I don't see how what you've described is a game changer. Surely, at least sometimes, what you want to do is exactly what visual-mode provides: explicitly select a region, using the combined movement of any available operator, and then act on that region.
- But Vim has visual-mode, which is select-then-action too.
- > I wrote a long comment but refreshed by accident before I could post it...
So I was going to write a commiseration and a screed about what a colossal UI failure this is, that you can so easily lose such work. But FWIW, before posting I searched to see if there are any extensions to address this. There are several for Chrome, but on Firefox I ended up trying "Textarea Cache", and sure enough if you close the page, and reopen it later, you can click the icon to recover your words.
- I've done my best to express a logical argument for my assertions. I've defined what I mean by intelligence, and given examples of humans who lack major senses or physical capabilities, and yet are still considered intelligent; attempting to argue that intelligence is not tied to any physical characteristic, but is rather a dexterity and facility with computation. I haven't yet grokked what you're actually arguing, though. You just seem to dislike the idea of intelligence being compared to computation, but I don't know what you're offering as an alternative.
- I'm all ears if you want to explain how you have a magic soul that is too important and beautiful to ever be equalled by a machine. But if intelligence is not equivalent to computation, then what is it? Don't take the easy way out of asking me to define it, you define it as something other than the ability to successfully apply computation to the environment.
Was Hellen Keller not intelligent because she lacked the ability to see or hear? Is intelligence defined by a particular set of sense organs? A particular way of interacting with the environment? What about paraplegics, are they disqualified from being considered intelligent because they lack the same embodied experience as others?
Whenever you give someone kudos for being brilliant, it is always for their ability to successfully compute something. If that isn't what we're discussing when we're talking about intelligence, then what are we discussing?
- What you are talking about is experience/knowledge, not raw intelligence.
It has been proven that a Turning Machine and Lambda Calculus have the exact same equivalent expressiveness, that encompasses the _entire set_ of computable functions. Why are you so sure that "text prediction" is not equally expressive?
- Sure, there's little doubt that our biology shapes our experience. But in the context of this conversation, we're talking about how AI falls short of true AGI. My answer was offered in that regard. It doesn't really matter what you think about human intelligence, if you believe that non-human intelligence is every bit as valid, and there is no inherent need for any "humanness" to be intelligent.
Given that, the constant drumbeat of pointing out how AI fails to be human, misses the mark. A lot of the same people who are making such assertions, haven't really thought about how they would quickly accept alien intelligence as legitimate and full-fledged... even though it too lacks any humanity backing it.
And why are they so eager to discount the possibility of synthetic life, and its intelligence, as mere imitation? As a poor substitute for the "real thing"? When faced with their easy acceptance of alien intelligence, it suggests that there is in fact a psychological reason at the base of this position, rather than pure rational dismissal. A desire to leave the purely logical and mechanical, and imbue our humanity with an essential spirit or soul, that maybe an alien could have, but never a machine. Ultimately, it is a religious objection, not a scientific one.
- What about aliens? When little green critters finally arrive on this planet, having travelled across space and time, will you reject their intelligence because they lack human biology? What if their biology is silicon based, rather than carbon?
There's really no reason to believe intelligence is tied to being human. Most of us accept the possibility (even the likelihood) of intelligent life in the universe, that isn't.
- So... what's the former way?