0thgen

I guess though with Obsidian, even if you get locked out or they dry up tomorrow, you don’t lose anything in your knowledge base because it works on top of your existing directory structure

The only thing you could get locked out of is the convenient curation that Obsidian provides

Im normally opensource-or-bust but the way obsidian is set up is pretty low risk

I’ve found that obsidian and Jekyll play pretty nice together. Not perfect but not bad

The key value of Obsidian is that your “website” (linked documents) is a WYSIWYG text editor (and even has native vim keybindings)

It may not be “new” but it’s extremely useful, and better than any existing alternatives that I’ve personally come across

And the fact that a “vault” is just your existing directory is also extremely convenient; nothing is hidden or obfuscated

Society's aren't individuals. They are collections of many individuals. I don't think society "chooses" to do or not do things in the same way we assume humans "choose" to do or not do things.

I don't think the complexity of human society can be boiled down to "we just choose not be perfect"

there is an interview with a person from India involved in a caste discrimination lawsuit that people should watch: https://youtu.be/XhGZUE1ABuo?si=r9DVUDAoexoS0-aB

they make similar arguments about why they feel the bill is a bad idea

it could just be that freeing humanity from the need to work takes longer than we thought

are we worse off than we were before industrial automation? I thought the economics said the opposite (even if we exclude the eastern nations that benefits from western job loss from our utilitarian analysis here -- which we shouldn't)

that meme was really good btw

well said. It might seem like semantics but I think getting people to think of science using the way you defined it would resolve a lot of these debates (plus many other other fashionably nonsensical ideas)

Some people have argued that the fuzziness of the legal system can be a good feature for some reason, but you could always have a machine execute the law and a human make the final call. So you wouldn't need judges, juries, or lawyers, but you would need a team of legal shamans that sign off on verdicts

I suppose a formalized legal language could:

- help in quickly testing whether newly drafted laws contradict existing laws(without needing to memorize the existing legal code)

- check for redundancies

- checking whether removing one law affects any others

- statistically analyze legal systems in different countries

Assuming any of those are important issues in law. I'm not sure

I too hate seeing other people excited about things they are interested in

As a consumer of these products, one central webapp / native app is extremely appealing (relative to having 8 apps open when I start my workday).

Is there a way we could prevent anti-competitive practices while _also_ encouraging service integration like MS 365 and the Google Software Suite?

Maybe a separate app that integrates various services (that you can swap in and out?) Something like Wavebox but nicer (and free-er)?

seems like a cool, intuitive library. surprised how much discussion time on here was spent on "the name" relative to the framework itself

I think it'll be a long time before something replaces emacs given that emacs is extremely niche and most text editors don't seem to be after the vim/emacs market

like mastazi, I also remove snapd immediately. I get all the benefits of ubuntu and lose absolutely nothing by removing snapd

I've never needed to use anything beyond pip in my 9 years of programming (science, ML, back-end web development). But maybe things get bad when you move beyond those things.

But we'll agree python's dep management is leagues ahead of javascript and R, though. Right?

I wouldnt say "never", but it certainly isn't now

but the community is allowed to be excited in growth, albeit small, right?

chatbot search engines

abysmal compared to?

maybe it's a personal workflow thing, because I've had the opposite experience

I wonder if the frequent dropping of features (the primary reason Ive seen people give for their gnome hatred) is part of why it currently looks so amazing.

Less features means less to maintain (which is important for an open source, free product).

Until AlphaCode can maintain a codebase as large as gnome, we should probably keeping the workload of open source devs as small as possible.

Just please dont take away tree view...

you are loading a tremendous amount of extra stuff into what's being said here. is that the right move?

"It confuses us in ways" could be framed: "it makes us rethink and expand our definition of intelligence and human cognition in very interesting ways".

Even if it's far from "true human" level (whatever that means), it gives us a theory about ourselves that's computationally falsifiable.

This is probably the best counter argument Ive heard thus far in the comments (not that the others were bad)

I also like brew. The whole UX pipeline is smooth, and I don't mind if it takes an extra 30 seconds to install packages (which doesn't happen often).

The brewfile (as someone mentioned) is super convenient, and the fact that I can use the same package manager for mac and linux is nontrivially awesome.

genius. maybe also publicly agree with yourself to show people it's possible

Not necessarily "new" news but an update

So either (a) we're dumb and pathetic, or (b) these issues are more complicated than we give them credit for.

For example, even though my personal opinion is that royalty is an abomination, how can I be so sure that the evolution of human social organization didn't require that particular structure? What if social organization is just a hard optimization problem, and king/queen rule is a temporary equilibrium state?

Always fascinating to learn when issues we still debate today have been on the minds of humans for many centuries prior

Ahh, thanks for putting this into perspective!

Anyone else see stuff like this and think: "Yea but it's wikipedia, they deserve whatever funding they want"

I get they can probably be closer to perfect as an organization, but I'm still always left feeling that wikipedia was one of the top 3 things to come out of the invention of the internet