fouric

> The macro solution send you down the path of having to memorize context specific commands and say a whole lot of words to get a small effect.

The macros that I'm talking about are exactly the opposite - you say a small number of words to produce a large effect (or, however much effect you programmed into them), e.g. when you define an Emacs function. What macros are you talking about?

> btw, small pushback. The way we use tools and programs is not abnormal.

The vast majority of people do not use speech interfaces to tools and programs, so this use is abnormal by definition - abnormal means "outside of the norm" and this is very much outside of the norm.

> Your comment shows just how much judgment people have when a user violates a designers UI vision or perceived physical norms.

No, it does not. "Abnormal" is not a judgement or a negative term - it literally just means "several standard deviations from the mean" (for some value of "several") - you can describe someone having "abnormal intelligence" (and the connotation with that phrase is almost universally positive). Don't read negative meaning into other peoples' comments where it doesn't exist.

> If a user can't make use of the UI provided, it's not the users fault, that belong squarely on the UI developer.

I'm not assigning fault to the user. You're assuming things here also.

I appreciate your attempt to help, but what works for your body may not work for others - I'm looking for general ergonomic principles backed up by sound scientific evidence.

> It is usually not worth the hassle to build special macros for editor specific navigation.

Why not? Wouldn't macros be more useful to customize your editing experience now that you use speech recognition, given that it's pretty unusual? In general, I'd expect customizations to have more value for people who use tools/languages in an abnormal way, not less.

As someone who may slowly be working his way toward RSI, I'd like to try to mitigate it before I get to the point of the author.

To that end, I'd like to try to build a maximally ergonomic setup (for the back and neck in addition to the hands) that doesn't necessarily have to conform to the standard chair+desk setup (e.g. a custom setup where one lies on their back with their monitor suspended above their face and their hands lying to their sides with a split keyboard).

In order to do that, I need the principles of ergonomics for the hands/wrists/arms, neck, and back - something that's been very challenging to find on the internet, as most of my search results are either trivial knowledge, blogspam, or just regurgitate the standard advice about various joints being at right angles without revealing the principles that drive that advice.

Where can I find those principles?

> The training is not modification and redistribution.

This is incorrect when you consider either the literal way that content licenses are written or the spirit in which they are written.

In the literal sense, unless you yourself are privy to cutting-edge research that has solved the problem of "how do you know that the model won't reproduce some of its training data verbatim or with small modifications", no, you cannot guarantee that there won't be redistribution.

In the spirit of the way that licenses are written - "redistribution and modification" is meant to control whether you can profit (not necessarily literally - "profit" here can mean in a reputational sense, or being able to build on the work of others before you) from someone else's work/content/effort - and training on the data of people who did definitely not explicitly consent to it, and have not indicated that they're ok with other people taking their work in general, is definitely against that spirit.

And, regardless of both of the above - if training is neither modification nor redistribution, then it's a new case that isn't considered by existing content licenses, so the default is "assume consent not given" - training should never be performed on data that isn't explicitly licensed for it or without the creator's consent. Consent is given, never assumed - a license that says "you're allowed to redistribute this content, unmodified" does not say anything about machine learning, and given that you're claiming that training doesn't amount to redistribution - the license simply doesn't say anything about training, and therefore you cannot claim that the author intended for it to be used that way.

The attitude raised above is that of entitlement - you feel like you are entitled to use (because training is definitely using) other peoples' work for your own gain without compensating them in any way, and certainly not on their terms.

> These creators have not asked for a return, so what makes training an AI any different?

Is every work in the training set licensed in a way that allows modification and redistribution?

> Sometimes you want to just be Susie around your friend

You can do that with the proposed system, because your display name can be anything you want and doesn't have to be unique.

Monads in a software engineering context ("a particular set of rules for composition of two pieces of code"); defunctionalization; Lisp structural macros; fexprs; the Rust lifetime system; how to structure functional programs. All of these things had a delta in years between when I first encountered them and when I finally understood them, with repeated (4-8) spaced exposures over that time period contributing.

I avoid needing to rely on my human memory (recall) when possible - if my phone is around, I make voice notes on it that are automatically synced to desktop which are then transcribed using Whisper[1].

When I do need to recall, I just use the strategy of "hold the items in my head as intently as possible, for as little time as possible until I'm able to get to my phone or some paper".

On the rare occasions when neither my phone or paper are immediately available, I try to visualize the ideas, projecting them onto a mental canvas, and try to use connections between them or mnemonics to remember them as best as I can.

I avoid the problem of "I sit down in front of my computer in order to write down or do a thing" by building the discipline necessary to prevent myself from getting distracted in that manner.

[1] https://github.com/openai/whisper

I would love something like this that just does an HTTP request instead of sending an email so it can integrate more easily with the rest of my infrastructure.

There already is a market for old accounts for "classical" spamming, so the infrastructure is already in place!

I am aware of the formal definition of logic. If this is all that tpxl meant, then it's an extremely pedantic and useless objection.

Sure, you can also say that some language models write like humans - however, even pre-GPT-2, I read several high-schooler's essays that read very much like these ML-generated products, so even if you don't believe that the relationship is transitive, I think you can say that the relationship is true in both directions.

Please elaborate.

> I would not be surprised if it is already here, but has been sidelined by the mods

I can virtually guarantee you that there's been a nontrivial amount of GPT-generated content on HN that has not been caught by mods since ChatGPT, and likely since GPT-2/3, as well. Dang (and the other one whose tag I can't recall) already have their hands full trying to keep the tone civil across thousands (tens of thousands?) of comments a day - it's impossible for them to catch every ML-generated comment (some humans actually do write like these newer language models, after all), and more than likely they're missing a decent number of them - through no fault of their own, it's just an extremely hard problem.

The three solutions that I'm shilling for this problem are (1) invite-trees for HN (like Lobsters, which makes the community much less open but also much more resistant to abuse) (2) webs of trust (not cryptographic, just databases of how much you trust users) overlaid onto HN and other places and (3) people actually reading the content of comments very carefully and upvoting logically sound arguments and downvoting illogical and emotional/manipulative ones, but all of these require a lot of effort and social buy-in.

What prevents Discord from doing a synchronized change of their web client and server APIs and using accesses to the old API to detect Ripcord users, then banning them?

This is a very beautiful and interesting project, and contains some themes that I've been thinking about myself recently (representations of code vs. data, interactive development environments, text markup, wikis).

I'm curious as to your take on the following opinion:

Even if your representation for an imperative programming language and declarative markup language are the same (I quite like using a parenthesized prefix notation for both), it's beneficial to cleanly separate those two languages in order to preserve a clean and distinct set of semantics for both.

(you can also extend this to a "presentation language" - what I'm getting at is that you can take the view that the tripartite separation of HTML, CSS, and JS in web technologies is actually a feature because it leads to a cleaner design than trying to mix all of those languages together (although I think that all of those particular languages have their own sets of flaws))

λ way is a very interesting project and I'm curious to see where it will go!

> If you are too busy, you will not think of the optimal solution to your intellectual problem.

Yeah, lots of people have noticed that when their brain is not busy (taking walks, taking showers (/r/showerthoughts), in a hammock), they frequently come up with creative solutions to their problems - and at least one kind of leisure that GP mentioned (gaming) generally pretty strongly occupies your mind and prevents this exact kind of (uh, "diffuse"?) subconscious thinking.

I really like this idea!

You can find it in all sorts of places. Here's one in video games: there are a lot of League of Legends videos by a channel called "Skill Capped" that each claim to have "one neat rule" or "5 mistakes to watch out for" to help you get better at the game. The only problem? The "one rule" is something like "don't do this thing unless you know that there's an 80% chance that it'll work" - and that's the hard part, that the video does nothing to help with.

I think that this is another flavor of "insight porn" where the video portrays itself as boiling down something hard into a simple insight - yet that insight is tautological, not useful, and/or skips the hard part.

u801e was advocating for the removal of said features, so this comment is incorrect and irrelevant.

It has fuzzy-filtering and auto-select - does dired have those? I think it's closer to helm-find-file.

This appears to be "helm-find-file" for those who want to use bash, and not Emacs.

I have the "automatically jump to a folder" setting turned on in my editor's file browser (Emacs with Helm), and it works much better than you're predicting - I rarely end up more folders down than I am shooting for, I don't need to invest much mental energy into prediction, and if I make a mistake, navigating up again is a single chord.

I think you're underestimating how efficient your brain can get at guesstimating how many characters are required to navigate to a directory, especially when the directory structure is familiar (at which point I virtually never overshoot).

And, I still find value in this feature despite being a fast typist (90 WPM).

Heh, I implemented almost exactly this same thing several years ago in Python[1], with the main difference just being the amount of polish and feature set. (I was, and continue to be, a very distractible person)

Good to see the idea getting more traction!

[1] https://github.com/fouric/lightning-cd

A few months ago, I came to the belief that Google is the ADHD toddler of user-facing software development - absolutely unable to sit still and concentrate on anything, hence the constant UI/UX churn, half-baked products, and graveyard[1] of shiny things that they worked on for a few years before abandoning.

Google seems to be really good at making developer tools like Borg and Blaze - however, I think that as an organization they have some deficit that makes them not responsible enough to develop user-facing software (like, uh, an operating system).

Maybe Google would be better as a B2B company.

[1] https://killedbygoogle.com/

That's my point - that that's a client side decision. u801e was either unaware of that, or advocating for the removal of images from the protocol.

While "Change gives the illusion of progress"[1] and there's a lot of overcomplicated "enterprise architecture" BS floating around, peddled by consultants looking to make big bucks off locking an organization into their schemes - isn't some organizational strategy needed for organizing large distributed computational systems? (I don't want to use the word "clouds")

If so, then it's worth taking a look at the proposal and assessing it based on its own merits. I, personally, would rather swallow my pride and admit that a particular architecture, while coached in buzzwords, is actually a good idea and will prevent me from pulling my hair out, then eschew all outside advice and have my workdays be filled with stress.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31986784

In a fit of irony, read the book Deep Work by Cal Newport.

I can think of many situations where I'd rather have an image that explains something much more clearly than a wall of text on my screen, and other situations where it's perfectly possible to send large blocks of useless non-syntax-highlighted text over IRC.

Don't try to solve social problems by removing useful technical features from tools.

Interestingly enough, if all of the above is true, then one can imagine that this very HN submission might be the work of a member of the Indian government/police wanting to increase pressure on Razorpay by applying negative PR to the company.

Post-truth world is not pretty.