d-lisp

Ha ! I personally use the trackpoint from my lenovo laptop (mouse buttons are over the trackpad). Index and thumb.

Is TCO still rejected by V8 ?

Well, if recursion is a species of iteration; then recursion and iteration are not the same thing.

An iterative process can be recursive or not.

There is a difference between

    while(true){
    }

and

    f=()=>f()

In the sense that f will at one point call a function in a function in ... and in some languages this will cause an error (maximum call stack). Also I think in some languages: in memory is stored some context that allows us to know how to "get out" of the function f, and within each recursive call of f, memory usage grows (I am no expert).

F is recursive. While is iterative.

we're all stardust

anything that happened so far has been causal and mandatory

you are forced to read this

But aren't recursive functions capable of this ?

``` function fWhile(q){ doSomethingWith(q.pop()) return !q.empty ? fWhile(q) : void }

fWhile(queue)

```

Well, if you are the type of carpenter that afford doing the best drawers and dominate your market, you can probably work slower. e.g. Some luthiers sell their instruments 5 years before their completion.

If you're the middle-end drawer maker, then you probably will put plywood on the back so that you can build more in less time and call it a day.

And in the end no one will ever see it.

Being flawed is the new being sentient.

French wikipedia traces the usage of @ to signify "à" (at) back to Renaissance !

It's possible that parsing a complex condition wrapped by parentheses was found more convenient.

I have the feeling the generalized "For" is nice because it allows for multiple initializers in a compact manner, how does for I from 0 to N by 5 deals with this ?

e.g. for(i=0,j=N.length;i<j;i++)

Translating the Musk video to french is weird. What's interesting is that sometimes protagonists speak with an accent from Quebec, and sometimes with kind of an old school voice from some old french movie. There's a laugh in the sequence, which is translated with again some audio quality that belongs to an old french movie.

All I can say is

Helvetica ultra bold "It's the real thing. Coke".

When I program I write words with two or three strokes thanks to lsp, company, yasnippets and <return> or <tab>. On my keyboard tab and return are accessible with my thumbs. I can perform any task related to my window manager, manage multiple monitors and windows with two fingers of the same hand, without moving my hands from the keyboard.

My keyboard is a macro-keyboard by default, "input" is a specific mode of the keyboard, that's vi but for whole desktop.

I type 120+ wpm, most of the keys I can type is an abstraction, the rest are characters.

All of that said, I do think there's no better thing as a split keyboard for controlling ergonomically your computer.

I was interested in stenography, but that's too much work to probably never reach the velocity and comfort I have right now.

Honestly, that's hard to explain; I truly see colors, shading, lighting, can touch textures, feel weight of objects and etc... It's just that my body isn't truly performing these things. How do you remember a scene from your childhood ?

For the software part it's weird because most of the time ideas happens instantaneously.

I think solutions appears once I understand something about the problem. Solutions are then explored by my own mental compiler or interpreter, I can run them mentally and see where it fails or not. Problems are mostly a language problem, if I can describe the problem then it's not a problem anymore but almost the recipe to bake a solution. Complex problems appears when the sentence to describe them becomes too long (That's what it feels to me).

Having a focus problem doesn't make you unable to solve complex problems, but rather forces you to break down complex problems into blocks, or to use abstractions to describe solved parts of a complex problems, or something else of that type (again, that's what it feels to me).

Having a focus problem is like having too few RAM.

If I count the numbers of windows in my house, I can do it mentally, by flying through my house, but I can also fill my house mentally with water and swim around to count them (and I would almost feel the cold water on my face and body and hear what you usually hear when you are underwater and etc...). I can also go outside and count the windows of my neighbors, and take a walk in some place I saw one time in my life. I can visit Roma if I want and all of that stuff.

It's like I can trick my brain into thinking I am really in the situation I am thinking about.

It's different from reality, but I don't know how to explain why and how it is different.

When I decide to see things in my mind, if I don't focus enough to keep them still they never cease to become something else than they represent. If I imagine a luxurious green field with an apple tree, immediately if I don't control the scene mentally to conserve it, some apple will fall producing a noise, some mad cow will run into the fov, trying to hit the apple with its horn, yelling and distracting me or whatever event that seems to happen naturally in the weird world that is my mind.

Example : I imagine a table > the legs of the table become rubber and bend, the table seems to be a live and jumps like if it was alive, some marbles fall onto it like raindrops on a bad day of autumn, the table falls because of the marbles on the ground ...

Very funny, but also quite frustrating because it really is HARD to stop stuff to happen.

Comparing the prompt is an idea, also

Okay, that's an animation.

The process is weird because the website shows the percent bar oscillating back and forth before attributing you a score, if this isn't just an animation. I am curious to know if comparing pixels and their color, the amount of pixels that are this or that hue, is sufficient to give such a result.

Only 27% of the population voted for the current president at the first phase of the elections in 2022, and 24% in 2017.

That's wrong to imply that X voted for that person.

a. X claims he didn't have enough money to live well.

and

b. The only way for X to reach his workplace is to consume a more and more expensive resource.

"Change job", " work more", "live somewhere else" are not good advices because X is often unqualified, works already a lot and cannot afford a place inside the town where he works.

What should X do ?

The necessity of consumption is a bigger problem than "we consume to much hydrocarbon energy". People don't value cheap hydrocarbon energy over the future of earth, but they value their own life, and no solution exists, for a lot of regions in france, to allow you to cease using your car.

In some places solutions are implemented in a weird manner, I personally had to take the bus at 5 am to go to " Lycée", where most of my courses began around 9-10am (if there were courses the morning) and then at 8pm to go back home (I was home at 9h30pm approximately, depending on the traffic). Lycée was great, now if I had to do this before and after a day of work, it would highly resemble what I call "a boring life". But still, while 3 hours or more in my life were dedicated to " transit" and a lot of time in the morning was dedicated to "wait", other people living in the city were just sleeping in the morning and probably reading their lessons or socializing.

Bus was taking a lot more time than cars to commute is these regions because there's a lot of villages to connect to the town. (My village was the last of the line). As of today, there is still only two bus that connects the village to the town, one in the morning at 5am, and one in the night, at 8pm.

I see "direct manipulation of output" and some boredom/frustration from reading internals of the source code, and I think the solution you seek is a kind of repl LLM, that would understand and rewrite on user input every internal code in order to produce the effect you may want.

Interesting to note that scientific paper "trivialization" is about replacing jargon words by their meaning; i.e. by opening abstractions, making the text larger and larger, note that every scientifical concept or abstraction needs other abstractions to be explained that needs themselves trivialization because an abstraction is an elliptical and compressed way of saying something else (every abstraction is a tree of abstractions).

With this operation you are losing the possibility to even read some paper for obvious length reasons. What you lose in complexity is gained in thickness.

The problem is that low/no code doesn't consist in the same thing; abstractions it propose are meant to build a bridge between our current language and programming languages, just as UI is a bridge between our behavior and the execution of some script/function. In fact in this case, we are proposing to trivialize software development, not by reaching the initial machine code it expresses (explaining abstractions) but by inventing on top of theses abstractions another type of abstraction that is understandable to the non tech person reading the code (high level languages vs assembly is performing a similar operation). The difference with the science paper case is that here, complexity of abstractions leads to a better understanding of the text.

Problem is that with low/no code, you are lacking the ability to cross the bridge back (because you fail to analyze abstractions into their atoms) while scientific folks can.

C is powerful because it allows you to stay in the position of someone that understand computers and assembly. Higher level languages (interpreted ones) are dealing with the problem that low code hopes to solve in a better way : you don't need to understand the C implementation of X language to use it, and still you have a lot a power and freedom to develop software, eliminating the overheads of dealing with memory and etc...

I fail to see low code

as something else than a subset of X interpreted language that allows you to write in pure english (but the complexity of software doesn't lie in its expression, rather in its conceptualization), OR as something else than a GUI that allows you to write software (or UI) by dragging and dropping stuff at the screen, which is the worst I can imagine because again you would have the same problem of learning to technify yourself and reading documentation to understand what is in fact a weird suboptimal programming language.

You see, logical thinking doesn't bring us far in ethics, because it leads to "The biggest thing we can do to reduce our carbon emission is to cease".

Persistence is the key

Persistence on the keys

Also, if the second field is too much informative, I don't need to read a lot of articles anymore.

That kind of desert : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salar_de_Uyuni

Well, if you ban tourism, you're on an efficient track of slowing global warming.