mk12

I'm not entirely convinced by it. But even if I was, I'd still stand by my claim that many people speak about this with unwarranted confidence. This comment thread has lots of people who seem to know for sure that they do/don't have it, and also several definitions such that I could easily self-diagnose in either direction by picking the right one.

I think it should work in the other direction though. You might draw well even without mental pictures, but if someone has AR-glasses-style superimposed images but can't trace them on paper, that would seem strange to me.

It's a well known thought experiment: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia-inverted/. I'm not arguing for or against it being true.

Yeah by "my red" I'm talking about qualia as in the knowledge argument https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia-knowledge/

Maybe I am one of those few people :) I don't know how to interpret that diagram. Based on some of the comments here I would put myself at #1, and based on others at #5.

Do you find drawing easy then, since you could trace around a visualization? That seems like it could be a useful test. I would expect those without aphantasia to be better at contour drawings (e.g. cartoon characters) if it really feels superimposed on normal vision.

I wasn't trying to convey that conclusion. I'm skeptical at people's confidence; I'm not confident that they're wrong. I think they discount how big a factor the difficulty in communication is.

On internal monologue, I said the opposite. I'm skeptical when people say things like "I also don't have an internal monologue. I don't passively think thoughts. I have to actively think everything."[1] I have a reason for this beyond personal experience and bias: that it's easy to be shockingly wrong in this direction. For example, many people will think they can count 60 breaths without being distracted by thoughts, only to find it impossible when they try and pay close attention.

Maybe the swapped color was a bad example. I just mean any direct comparison of qualia in different minds which is impossible to do, and therefore pointless to talk about.

[1] The first Reddit post I found searching for "no inner monologue"

I was imagining people saying this in reference to a diagram like that (labelled with percentages instead of 1-5).

If it means being able to hallucinate on command, i.e. superimpose the apple in your view as if you were wearing AR glasses, indistinguishable from a real apple apart from your knowledge that it's fake -- then that's a much sharper test and I can confidently say I can't do that. I'd be very surprised if anyone told me they could do that. If it's more of a separate mental plane rather than really seeing it, that's where I think it gets tricky to agree we're describing the same thing.

I've never understood how people talk so objectively and confidently about this. There are subjective things we'll never able to compare, like whether your experience of red and green is the same as mine or swapped. Then there are other things like face blindness that have testable effects in the real world. When one person says they see 80% clear mental pictures and another person says 10%, how can we be so sure they aren't just describing the same experience differently? I have no idea how I could accurately report my experience of the apple test. I could say I see it clearly or not at all depending on what you mean by seeing.

EDIT: It also reminds me of the "inner monologue". I'm skeptical when people confidently claim they have no inner monologue, as if it's as easy to verify as being right-handed or left-handed. In the context of meditation, it's common for people to confuse "having no thoughts" with "thinking nonstop" -- it's not an easy thing to understand about yourself, let alone claim how it relates to other people's subjective experience.

It won't require build.zig, you'll just have to run zig translate-c on the C file. Andrew's comment here[1] says that @cImport is basically @import + the compiler implicitly running translate-c for you. There was some discussion of removing the translate-c subcommand as well (which would force you to use build.zig), but I don't think it's been decided to do that.

[1] https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/20630#issuecomment-225...

The work-in-progress Zine SSG project https://zine-ssg.io/ calls its templating Super and it works just like this — directives are written in HTML rather than on top of it.

I spent a while trying to do all the semantic markup properly on my blog -- <em>, <i>, <dfn>, <cite>, <mark>, <strong>, <b>, etc. I eventually gave up and just used <i> and <b> everywhere. It was such a waste of energy reading MDN docs and trying to decide between tags when they render identically and 99.9% of users aren't going to view the source. I also encountered bugs like <cite> breaking Safari Reader View.

+1 for NearlyFreeSpeech! I’ve used them for years paying only 40-45 cents a month. I love that I can just ssh in and mess around. My site is mostly static but recently I wanted to add a private section for specific family and friends. So I implemented OAuth 2.0 login with 2 php files and an .htaccess rule.

I've slowly been working through SICP, currently on chapter 3: https://mk12.github.io/sicp/. There are lots of other websites, but what sets mine apart is the exercise solutions are written as modules with explicit dependencies on other parts of the book, and they are tested in three Scheme implementations. I describe my approach for this here: https://mk12.github.io/sicp/exercise/language.html.

A while ago I started to build something similar, but I didn't get much farther than choosing a name for the project (https://github.com/mk12/loopy). I want to design a language that can specify patterns precisely and unambiguously, and then visualize them in a physically accurate way. For basic 2D patterns I was thinking I could render each stitch based on it and its neighbors (3x3 grid of K/P). But that wouldn't be that useful. What would really be neat is to use a physics engine to simulate the yarn in 3D. For example the simulations would show stockinette curling and ribbing stretching without that being hardcoded anywhere. But I think it's too hard and I have no idea where to start with that.

Wow, this is exactly how I feel! I'm a software engineer and I also started knitting last year. I'm really enjoying it for all the reasons you listed.

I've used Zoho's free email account for my personal domain name for years and it's worked great.

Interesting, those are the two main apps I use for writing. Maybe I should check this out.

Snowflake used it when I worked there and I assume still does.

There are lots of terminal projects recently. Ghostty (https://mitchellh.com/ghostty) and Terminal Click (https://terminal.click) come to mind. Also Warp and Fig but they don't appeal to me because they're proprietary (and Fig got acquired by Amazon). I've been very happy with kitty (https://sw.kovidgoyal.net/kitty/) for years and it would take a lot to make me switch.

I don't care what language Homebrew uses, it just works. When I got my M1 MacBook in 2021 I saw some of this negativity about Homebrew, and since I was doing a clean install anyway I decided to try out MacPorts. I quickly ran into problems and switched back to Homebrew and it's been smooth sailing.

I listened to that, it was good! I was surprised there is an entire podcast about array programming. Looking forward to future episodes, and also to trying AoC with BQN again in a few months.

I recently found out about another project called jj: https://github.com/martinvonz/jj. It takes inspiration from Pijul and others but is git-compatible.

smaddox is working on one called Dawn:

https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=dawn-lang.org

There hasn't been an update in over a year but I hope it's still going because it looked really interesting.

I don't doubt your experience but that doesn't match mine. Third-party preference panes were slow for me in the old app, but I never noticed any lag with the standard ones.

The Settings app is inexcusably bad. On my M1 Pro MBP there is reliably 500-1000ms delay between clicking a section and waiting for it to appear.

I felt that way at first too but I’m less concerned about it the more I use Zig. Defer and errdefer are already a huge improvement over C. I won’t deny there’s more risk of forgetting to clean up than in Rust or C++, but Zig’s approach forces me to think more clearly about what’s going on. For example, instead of doing a slow tree traversal to free little bits of memory all over the place (which RAII would do implicitly), in Zig I’d probably use an arena and free it all at once. A similar principle applies to other non-memory resources too (though maybe not mutexes for example). I also think it would be difficult to achieve the flexibility of Zig’s unmanaged containers (where deinit takes a parameter) in a RAII language.

For anyone looking to get into array programming, I'd recommend https://mlochbaum.github.io/BQN/. I'm no expert but I had a lot of fun using it for Advent of Code last year. I found it to be a lot more sensible and modern feeling than J (the only other one I've tried).

Sure, if it's a viable alternative (e.g. can at least handle all the examples in the dropdown), I'd accept a PR to include it.