Timwi

21 ms·

331.
by Timwi 1y ago
It is so amazing and wholesome to see a huge team of people come together and just collaborate on something they are passionate about and seriously believe in. I'm very hopeful that Ladybird will get to the point where we can use it as
332.
by Timwi 1y ago
> That's something that would likely destroy any country that passed it What makes you say that?
333.
by Timwi 1y ago
Replicators won't dispense with capitalism, at least not automatically. Replicators need tremendous energy which can be privately controlled, plus capitalism can maintain minority control over a technology like this via trade secrets e
334.
by Timwi 1y ago
But then you could argue that UNIX time is just a modification of other forms of date/time reckoning. It becomes a semantic debate over what counts as a separate thing, and that's not a fantastically interesting question anymore.
335.
by Timwi 1y ago
Depending on how you draw the line, it could be argued that science — the project of uncovering the workings of the universe — is the longest-running of all. Although the word “science” isn't that old and is generally associated with t
336.
by Timwi 1y ago
That should have been hyphenated then. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old-growth_forest
337.
by Timwi 1y ago
They absolutely point to the brain as the cause. To suggest otherwise is to introduce unscientific/superstitious concepts like souls or whatnot, which violates Occam’s razor. If that’s the road you want to go down, come back when you h
338.
by Timwi 1y ago
> Apparently my body and some part of the brain took over the driving That part of the brain is the cerebellum (mostly).
339.
by Timwi 1y ago
Can recommend some alternatives?
340.
by Timwi 1y ago
“paying the LLM”??
341.
by Timwi 1y ago
You're derailing the conversation. The discussion was about thinking, and now you're arguing about something entirely different and didn't even mention the word “think” a single time. If you genuinely believe that anyone know
342.
by Timwi 1y ago
I have to push back on this. It's the people who constantly assert that LLMs “don't think” who are not engaging in a conversation. It's a thought-terminating cliché. Unfortunately, even those willing to engage in this convers
343.
by Timwi 1y ago
You appear to be implying that the $100 billion hardware and software must all be completely useless. I think the opposite conclusion is more likely: the structure of the education system actively hinders learning, so much so that even the
344.
by Timwi 1y ago
I don't know about you, but I'm not sure I'd be all that interested in a programming language that is focused on scoring sales.
345.
by Timwi 1y ago
Remind me never to play Mao with you lol
346.
by Timwi 1y ago
It would help if you hadn't repeatedly used exploitative marketing/business language like “user retention” and “monetization”. Your desire to delight children and make them smile is commendable if that is the end-goal, but the tex
347.
by Timwi 1y ago
I personally thought it was pretty well-written. It sticks to the details that are relevant in the moment so it doesn't detract or get bogged down, but it does let you know what other things are there so it doesn't feel limited or
348.
by Timwi 1y ago
I personally found the descriptions of the concepts and ideas more illuminating and interesting than a code example. If you're only looking to nitpick the superficial syntax, kinda like judging a person's character by how they dre
349.
by Timwi 1y ago
Honestly, I get it. The document wants to tell you what's new and different under the hood, not what the language looks like superficially. Code examples don't actually tell you what the language feels like in production. It'
350.
by Timwi 1y ago
The dark pattern is not telling users how much they've used so they can't plan or ration.
351.
by Timwi 1y ago
Trying real hard to set aside my cynicism and hope that we will actually chase down 'Oumuamua and write space exploration history. Trying. Real hard. It's not easy.
352.
by Timwi 1y ago
It was not. A lot of the questions that would now be rejected for “subjectivity” were initially allowed, then at some point migrated to a separate instance, called “programmers.stackexchange.com” and deleted from the main site. Of course, o
353.
by Timwi 1y ago
Ironically, I predicted this already back in 2010 (or whenever the site started). I knew from the outset that disallowing duplicates forever was not future-proof, and that the voting mechanism will favor answers posted earlier, not answers
354.
by Timwi 1y ago
Yeah sorry, but I think you massively misread that take. It's not about conformity. It's about keeping yourself liked so that people will voluntarily interact with you. You can no longer get away with being a narcissistic arsehole
355.
by Timwi 1y ago
https://www.thehamsterforum.com/threads/big-sad-forum-news-o... Basically, geoblock the UK or go offline.
356.
by Timwi 1y ago
> When you point out real world examples, the response is always “No, not like that ” My impression from this thread is that this is because the law was implemented in a way that's indicative of a lack of technical understanding on
357.
by Timwi 1y ago
When it started talking about mimicking the experience of Visual Basic, I was excited, because I have fond memories of that (and Borland Delphi after it) and its ability to let me design a window/dialog layout in a WYSIWYG manner, But
358.
by Timwi 1y ago
There are many mistakes in the Wat talk from destroyallsoftware. The biggest one is that he types `{}+[]` and claims that he's adding an object and a list. It's actually an empty scope followed by a unary + applied to a list. You
359.
by Timwi 1y ago
The person you're responding to didn't misunderstand (or ask) how it works. They just find it inconvenient. It would be perfectly possible to add field access without needing to support arbitrary expressions. However, as someone c
360.
by Timwi 1y ago
Or you could just write your own if you think you can create one you'll be happier with. C# provides IFormatProvider for this exact purpose and I've honestly not seen that level of customizability elsewhere.

More ›