MarsIronPI

Am I the only one who's not a fan of these new, longer TLDs? IMO TLDs should be two or three characters. I'm not sure why I feel this way, but there's something unwieldy about a TLD like .cooking.

Have you read through the Emacs Lisp Intro and Elisp manuals in Info? The latter is especially helpful as a reference.

I wonder if at some point some parts of Codex will only work with multi_agent_v2, or the Responses API in general. Then we'd need a fork to keep using e.g. llama.cpp's Chat Requests API.

How does this affect local models? Will all the features of Codex still work with local models?

I think issue #426[0] would be sufficient, since it would allow for editing after the command is finished. I understand that it probably won't happen any time soon, but embedding a full terminal emulator in Eshell is the thing that's got me staying on EAT right now.

Ghostel looks really nice though!

[0]: https://github.com/dakra/ghostel/issues/426

Forwarding the socket doesn't work, but if you use X11 then you can use `ssh -X`, and the remote Emacs will open a frame on your local X server.

Do beware though that if you use the non-PGTK GTK build, closing this new frame will crash the remote Emacs.

Does Intune stop you from running any unapproved .exe's? Because IIRC Emacs can run as a "portable" executable that doesn't need to be installed in Program Files.

(I don't have any experience with Intune so pardon my ignorance.)

> His aggregate ambition is undoubtedly _less_ achievable by orders of magnitude.

Leaving out the political ambitions, which would be a separate discussion, I think space bases are _way_ more realistic than machine consciousness (which is what I understand AGI to be). In fact, I can visualize what technology space habitats would require today, whereas I wouldn't even know how to determine whether a machine is conscious.

> An evil man doing good deeds is still an evil man; swapping "good deeds" with "ambition that enriches himself and may possibly help the rest of us in the future" doesn't make things any better.

I'm not sure that saying Musk wants to enrich himself is very fair. AFAICT he doesn't use his wealth in ways that most people would expect a billionaire to. Based on what I can tell of how he spends his money, he seems to genuinely believe in his ambition. So I would argue that any enrichment of himself, in his mind, is for his ambition and therefore for humanity's good.

I think a lot of Musk's actions can be understood as someone who wants to focus on getting humanity to Mars, and who gets tangentially distracted by other things (such as AI, possibly) and who deals with what he considers obstacles (such as the government).

> But here's the thing, AI will be the source of truth soon. For many it already is.

When that happens, the bridges will start collapsing and the generators will stop working. So I'm confident that when we get to that point people will come to their senses, at the latest.

So you can call out the AI's mistakes. Everyone seems to be saying that AI is really good, except at their particular field. Make of that what you will.

More like I think Musk's proclaimed ambition is actually important and achievable, unlike Altman's and Amodei's. Whether or not any of the three will actually accomplish their ambitions remains to be seen; but of the three I think Musk's is most beneficial to humanity.

Honestly, I don't think Elon Musk can fairly be described as more evil than Dario Amodei or Sam Altman.

Sure, but an idea is not a (physical) good, nor is it a service. Coming up with an idea or writing a book is a service and should be paid for (probably by commission), but (and Stallman would agree) the idea or book itself should be free.

Not so. Stallman created copyleft licenses as a defense against the current implementation of copyright. Copyleft uses the existing system of copyright to protect authors of free software from people who want to use copyright to restrict distribution. It wouldn't be necessary if copyright didn't exist.

The problem is that some GNU packages, Emacs among them, have a policy that copyright of the code must be assigned to the FSF. This policy exists because the FSF and GNU have gotten legal advice to the effect that all owners of a project must sue together to sue against copyright violators. So I don't forsee this policy changing while LLM output is not copyrightable.

Usury (i.e. taking interest) sounds like free market to me. If you don't like my interest rates, borrow somewhere else.

Maybe the making of the thing should be paid for before it's made, rather than hoping that selling copies will recoup the investment. I.e., go back to patronage while abolishing copyright.

At least bridge to something the freedom-loving folks will use, e.g. Matrix, or (better IMO) Jabber.

By generating plausible-sounding corrections.

Looking on the bright side, where there's AI-generated muck, there will be brass for humans willing to clean it up.

For me it's useful to have a separate directory with my dotfiles repo, since my dotfiles repo's top level directory doesn't correspond to my home directory. I have one subdirectory for each machine.

I still don't see what was so broken about X's security model that it warranted a whole new protocol (with its own problems that it's still solving 15 years later) instead of an extension to X11.

Meh, I felt that the article was over-dramatic and verbose at times.

It seems to me that the issues on that page are Wayland-specific; anectotally, on my random X window manager works fine with Fcitx (except for Emacs, but that's probably Emacs' fault, not the IME protocol's).

VimFX + LegacyFox is still the best; it even works on about: pages.

GTK (and QT I do believe) also support this on GNU/Linux.

I suspect that rather than some kind of digital proof-of-competence, communities will shift to in-person meetups at conferences and such. Which is unfortunate for people who can't attend for whatever reason, but I think some solution to that can be worked out.

Maybe it is, if they can somehow vet potential new contributors in-person at e.g. conferences.

It's not source available, source available implies some restrictions on what you can do with the source, or with any resulting binaries. This isn't a rugpull; all they're doing is closing off contributions, which has nothing to do with the license of the code.

IMO Phoenix[0] is what Wayland should have been: a reimplementation of X11. We didn't need a new protocol.

https://git.dec05eba.com/phoenix