1718627440

CIA Information Services.

By that measure Quantum mechanics as explanation is simple, because "it's according to Quantum mechanics" already covers everything.

However that is not what I think of when I hear "complexity of an explanation", I do not think of the complexity of the statement referring to the explanation, but of the complexity of the explanation itself, which is only referred to by the statement.

Also I disagree with using the number of experiments needed to arrive at the conclusion as a measure for complexity. By that measure "things fall down" is complicated, when you have done a lot of experiments. I would rather take the number of "steps" needed to derive it from first principles once you know it. But also that sounds like what you said in your last sentence, so you are contradicting yourself?

I was only thinking about the software, yes. Also a lot of the "Arduino" libraries are not really owned by Arduino, even if they like to attach themself to it, so while it is true what they write about different licenses of the libraries, this what not what I considered to be part of Arduino itself. I was only thinking of the buildtools they release. While these are board specific, these are often "just" a fork of gcc, board-specific linker/image builders, a flasher and the Arduino-build system. Only the latter is what they actually created (arguable not even that: https://arduinohistory.github.io/).

Vending luxury clothing is what ancient tradesmen got rich from, kinda like the Elon Musks of their time.

Electricity also isn't invented, yet an electricity network uses a lot of technologies. This is kinda true for everything. Invention is a discovery, so I fail to see the dichotomy.

> The simplest would be "god did it" pretty much everytime.

An out-of universe entity, that is by definition too large to be understandable to anything in universe, is a lot, but not simple. Are you sure, you are not confusing easy and simple?

Because the contractor is still a legal person and an LLM is not. OpenAI is trying to put the blame at a tool they created thereby trying to weasel around there guilt.

The you are responsible even more, and also proved you did it intentionally. What are you even arguing for?

This way you do not absolve your responsibility, you just manipulate the way to enforce it.

Because humans do it too and "AI" is a statistical approach to generate plausible human text? A large randomly sampled Human text that wouldn't contain lies would be very implausible!

I agree, a predicate of non-tolerance or non-democraticness should be in the conclusion of an argument, not in it's assertion or justification.

This is certainly what could be the case, except it isn't. It was decided in 1949 what the current understanding of democracy in Germany is. You could of course decide to define democracy as broad so that it also encompasses the Athenian democracy, but that is not what we currently mean when we speak of a liberal democracy.

If party A, being labeled as communist by party B, and party B, being labeled as fascistic by party A, both agree, as well as all other parties in-between, that you are a threat to democracy, maybe you are.

If you are looking for a party that labels itself democratic and all others anti-democratic, you need to look at the AfD themself.

Democracy isn't a dictatorship of the majority!

The AfD is polling ~30% for federal elections[1]. The NSDAP had 18.3% in 1930[2], 37.3% in 1932[3], 33.1% in 1932[4] and 43.9% in 1933[5] (and 9x% ever after).

Yes they are still away from having the absolute majority, but please don't undersell the issue. They have a 10% difference from the second place.

    [1]    https://dawum.de/
    [2]    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1930_German_federal_election
    [3]    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_1932_German_federal_election
    [4]    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_1932_German_federal_election
    [5]    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_1933_German_federal_election

> we can (and should) pick the better one after careful continous evaluation

The current complaint is that they pick the worse one after at the current evaluation.

This is actually already required to be supported by complying to the FHS.

> Arduino,... are not GPL based

Arduino is "just" repacked gcc in a nutshell, so it is GPL-based.

It's just a fundamental problem of encoding the boundary between different (meta-)languages in-band. It will always be a problem, until it's possible to implement the separation out-band, which makes the respective language no longer self-contained, as it needs to be implemented in the layer above.

This occurs now with LLMs too. It's a fundamental problem, of the problem description, not the implementation.

> Even DOS didn't really have libraries, you had peripherals mapped to memory at certain addresses,

And linked libraries are interfaces mapped into memory at certain names. I think that's an awesome improvement.

That's why I like the "managed" model Debian uses. Programs are enforced to comply to the OS standards. If they don't, they either get changed by the Debian maintainers or just not included into the distribution. That's why I can know where things are in my filesystem.

There is travic.app, which uses realtime data, if available.

You need hundreds of them to make an orchestra and every big city want's an orchestra to be competitive.

The absence of "needing to manage the index" is what breaks my workflow.

Because it interferes with my workflow. If there are non-committed changes when I want to do something else, they do represent actions I want to do. I don't just have random uncommitted changes there. Setting --autosquash as default results in my finding out I forgot something later.

I believe this to be the same with the index, that is praised as unnecessary and "overcomed" in JJ.

The actual rules are different per-country, but the trend is the same. In Germany you aren't allowed to have crossings for lines permitted for over 160km/h. Also the former national railway company decided to not build new crossings at all. They have downsides for both participating transportation modes: less capacity, annoying waiting times, slower velocity, safety, security and availability issues. The only downside of bridges is space and cost.

> Along with the appropriate git stash and git stash pops

If you don't want to do that, you can tell git to do it automatically too? I actually thought I would like that, so I used it for a week. I did not like it at all.

> But if the cherry pick doesn’t cleanly apply at the current HEAD

If the diff you want to commit isn't applicable to the tree you want to apply it to, it's not going to work, no matter the VCS you use.

> then you have to remember to either do the git rebase -i first and pause at the appropriate place to cherry pick

You say that like these would be separate operations, but for me these are very much not, I guess like the fact that you need to supply both '-r oldercommit' and '--before @-' are for you. I think this is the point where I actually don't understand your view. Like, we both need to supply two parameters, we need to because this is the operation we want to do. You write two parameters free form, I write one free and select the other from a list. There is a difference, I actually think selecting from a list can be more convenient in some cases, less in others. But I don't get why you write like it would be crazy work.

> though I also recall rebase only letting you pause before a commit so you lose your commit message, but that’s probably a me problem

It does only let you handle full commits, if that's what you mean, if you want to split a commit you need to provide information how. But that it doesn't sound like you mean that.

> so you lose your commit message

You can apply commit metadata independently of the tree you want to commit, so that definitely occurs never.

> maybe detach your head

I bet you don't have issues with detaching the head in JJ, so why do you in Git, it's just a normal state.

> start doing surgery because otherwise you’ll be resolving conflicts in two different directions as you cherry pick and then rebase

Yes, but that is not because you use Git, but because you wrote the change against some other commit first, which you don't do in your JJ example. You could do that in Git as well and then you only have one set of merges to resolve.

> I’m usually going back to git reflog to try to find the last point where history made sense

Which is git rebase --abort or git reset @{1}. The latter is always the same, this is as silly as saying I can't remember whether it's jj undo or jj revert.

> But I said I didn’t want to think about this anymore.

Yet you do in JJ.

I do, but I don't really get it, because you did learn the jj command. I mean you could have learned jj first, I would understand that, but I presume that is not the case.

> How many of those do you need?

How many do I want?

> How do find the correct arguments

How do you find the correct arguments for jj?

> and git checkouts to do before?

Why would I do a checkout before? I don't want to modify the worktree? Maybe I in fact also want to alter the worktree, but that's unrelated.

> Are you sure you remembered to do everything?

Am I sure I have all my files ordered? No. Does it matter? Also no. Are you sure you have no bug in your commits in JJ?

If I want git to alter some set of commit chains, I can tell it to. Actually I never needed to do that, because I don't work on several thousand branches at the same time. I prefer it to not alter unrelated branches automatically, just because some earlier commit changed that is in both. Such things actually undermines the trust I have in a tool, because it does things I haven't told it to do, even if I'm aware it does these things.

> What if there are merge commits?

Then I resolve them. Merge conflicts occur, because there is some actual conflicting change and often it is also semantic. These don't go a way by changing the VCS. On a theoretic basis, these require outside information(=decisions) that is not there yet. There are more often semantic conflicts, that are not syntactic, then there are the other way around. If you are referring to doing the same merge conflicts again, I can tell Git to resolve them automatically too, but it actually occurred too often, that this is not actually what I want, so I actually dislike that feature now.

git rebase --onto --rebase-merges ?

Can't you run this under a different user or in the same, but with another instance of the desktop server?

Governments also codify into law that everything X standardizes is automatically a regulation for other standard bodies. Road and building standards work that way: they are just standards issued by a random association and the government has stated, that all developments in their jurisdiction need to follow this associations standards.

The government could also do this for the EU, it's called leaving the EU.