I knew it was usable without the build step but it's been a while since I looked at preact and I did not know about HTM -- thank you!!
1,313 karma · joined June 4, 2023
But I'm looking at tiny web interfaces for microcontrollers at the moment, and as an experienced Vue developer I find petite-vue and a classless CSS framework an appealing compromise for designs without a build step.
With a build step, maybe preact?
I have been thinking for a while about specialising in teaching how the web came to be, so people who are non-technical can understand enough to commission work, understand proposals, etc.; because I think people have no sense of what goes on under the hood.
But increasingly I think it's junior developers and web-oriented designers who need to be taught it.
(Also the developers of Hacker News: "flag" should be idempotent, surely, and not a GET request?)
But he does have his weird obedient puppy Dmitry Medvedev. Whose plane, I imagine, will have some engine trouble on day one of the post-Putin era.
Putin is much more like a monarch: rich to the point that almost nothing makes him feel rich. Which is why he's so desperate to pretend he excels at stuff: horse riding, ice hockey, shooting.
(He probably does excel at shooting)
Or perhaps he's more like an L Ron Hubbard with truly vast resources. Quixotic performative superiority.
(Being downvoted for this is a trip. Yes it's a joke, and hyperbole. But you know it is also true in substance.)
I've been looking for a tiny classless CSS framework to go with petite-vue in a build-step-free app for a microcontroller project.
water.css looks a good candidate already but there are some others to investigate there.
However, I was responding to assertions made specifically about GPT, not some other or future AI.
Other AI systems may be different (I am enthusiastic about Steve Grand’s approach for example) but GPT is not “thinking” by any useful stretch of the word.
I am not placing human intelligence at the pinnacle. I am rebutting the idea that GPT is usefully thinking. It alarms me how many people are willing to strongly suggest it has magical, unknown emergent abilities, when all it can really do is surface embedded logic in the corpus of the written word.
Idiotic if you ask me. He’s just like any dimwitted everyman: every single pub in the UK has at least two Joe Rogans. I was sat with my back to one in a coffee shop the other day.
But we, humans, qualitatively think in a way that we absolutely know for sure GPT does not.
We are capable of introspection and metacognition.
GPT is not. We know it is not, because the software does not provide it the resources or the methods to engage in it.
To suggest otherwise is pointless quasi-woo.
Rubs me up the wrong way, because there would be no way to identify who the individual apologising is.
However, I think error messages should apologise in the rare situation that there is no constructive, helpful, language-neutral way to convey an actionable response in an error.
It's really not. They bought his regular anti-intellectual dribble not because podcasts aren't decentralised, but the opposite: because the inexplicable draw of his particular brand of common-sense-insulting prole-feed might convince people that podcasts are something only big services can do, and to compete with other big services trying to do the same things. They want to give the impression that big content is "locked up" by services, when it's not.
In my estimation it hasn't really succeeded (in his asinine, consistency-free, bloviating world or anywhere else).
All they really did is associated their brand with his twaddle.
Human or animal thinking is a process, but it is an innate process of instinct, hypothesis, testing, prediction, overrule, and introspection. (Whether there is metacognition or not).
GPT "thinking" is only "thinking" in the colloquial sense of "wait a sec, the computer is thinking about it".
GPTs don't think. And they especially don't think in some imaginary complex way that we can't understand.
[I note that your subsequent edits invert the sense of what I was originally replying to so I am going to abandon discussion with you]
It doesn't think. It only processes.
And as far as I grasp it, its process can essentially be understood, not least because they were designed and documented.
It is several big mistakes to use "you will not understand" complexity mysticism equally when referring to biological processes and human-designed computer processes. Not the least of which that it is patronising and reductive.
For example I would like, and could reasonably afford, a decent technical camera rig and a 45mp+ digital mirrorless camera to go on the back of it. I know how to use it properly to get value from it.
The outlay for this is more than the Vision Pro by a small margin.
But there are many things I probably should spend that money on before that.
The Vision Pro, as amusing as it surely is, is way, way down the road beyond even that purchase.
Having the money to spend on something — whether a personal or business expense - means engaging with the opportunity cost of spending the money.
And even if you comfortably have the money, you still question the value.
What is going on right now is a lot of people have a Vision Pro on fifteen day approval and they are all feverishly writing blog posts and tweets to explore every possible way that they could get other people to validate their impulse purchase. Because that’s what it is. Unless you’re going to build an app for it —- go all-in on that ecosystem —- it’s a weird thing to prioritise spending $3500 on.
I would not suggest getting all of them anyway. It’s just to observe that the opportunity cost of disappearing inside an expensive virtual device is matched by the financial cost.
One gadget is the equivalent of the outlay of an entire well-funded hobby that might broaden your horizons.
;-)
[0] not much better than the creepy face-screens in Jamin Winans' amazing low-budget movie, Ink
a) doesn't watch films or use internet gadgets in bed, especially to the exclusion of someone else
b) would at any rate choose a film my partner wanted to watch too
c) ignoring the above, would probably buy the cheapest VR headset that offered a virtual theatre good enough
I eventually did get iPhones, but vividly remember being laughed at -- as a Mac user -- for choosing the little white HTC Magic with a trackball because I prioritised the idea of actually being able to edit text (which we now do on iPhones with a force-touch gesture not much more elegant than that trackball and lacking some of its nuance.)
And that bit about a VR headset being better than an iPad for a personal video player is some seriously optimistic, overextended thinking.
Is wearing half a kilo of electronics with a two hour battery life on your head really superior to a smaller screen with all-day battery life that you can put away at a moment's notice?
(Even ignoring that video content often has more than two hours of runtime.)
It just means you don't want to have kids. It doesn't imply any kind of belief structure.
Who knew HN had such a trad subculture.
Does not wanting children rule you out from being a role model for them (or anyone else) or being "exemplary"?