d-lisp

Yes, notebooks are a restrictive type of litterate programming, interactive and browser bound.

TeX was "proven" as a text/typography tool by the fact that the source code written in WEB (interleaving pascal and TeX (this is meta (metacircular))) allows for you to "render" the program as a typographed work explaining how TeX is made+ run the program as a mean to create typographic work.

I'm lacking the words for a better explanation of how do I feel sbout the distinction, but in a sense I would say that notebooks are litterate scrips, while TeX is a litterate program ? (The difference is aesthetical)

I dream of a world where the Knuth idea of programming and mathematics are naturally embedded in our cultures, like novels are.

I find it weird to not be able to find linux source code and commentaries or even math/physics/science masterpieces in libraries where you can find Finnegan's Wake easily (at least where do I live), and not be able to talk about the GHC in between two discussion about romance or the weather at the bakery.

When you think about it, Perseus did use Medusa's head to transform things into stone.

In fact he turned king Polydectes and all of his followers into stone when he went back to Sephiros.

Perseus defeated Medusa by not looking at her in the eyes.

Rust in a sense, allow you to solve problems without having to look directly at memory unsafe behavior.

I would have called this project "Medusa".

Yes, browsing the hyperspec (what a glorious name) inside of emacs was such a joy also.

That's truly a shame scripting/glue languages took a different path than lisp, but well, you can always lisp shape anything.

That's funny, I never found doubled namespaces that interesting; what are your opinions, why do you prefer them ?

> electric parens

I get you, I was amazed by the litterature around lisps (I always found the beginning of SICP (the wizard-programmer analogy) quite inspiring and fun)

How do you feel about Scheme ?

agreed.

I studied philosophy during a large extent of my life, and I am a convinced Witgensteinian.

I honestly prefer C/assembly over lisp, which should be even more so.

Well, I exiled myself to the countryside because I want to be able to choose how much exposure to society I want.

I guess I gamed the problems you are talking about, but as a side effect I am sometimes probably weirder than before (which is a non problem when you live where I live).

I would probably live a sad and boring life if I were to live in any small/medium/big city.

Eye contact makes me very uncomfortable.”

“I suck at small talk.”

“I have rigid routines.”

“I hyper-focus on my hobbies.”

“I am always fidgeting.”

“Social interaction exhausts me.”

“I really bad at making friends.”

“I don’t fit in; people find me weird.”

I never considered it althought I'm ticking all the buttons (bad gear ? [0])

[0] https://youtube.com/@audiopilz?si=g6iGJK3ygnCWESWW

Maybe one day we will discover that a method exists for computing/displaying/exchanging arbitrary things through none other means than our own flesh and brains.

Will they ? I don't know why -okay- but I am still suspicious about such claims. This is impressive, but I would be more convinced if the codebase was more complex, that is a toy and uninspiring implementation of a _very_ basic game, the most enjoyable part of your job surely lies in a place that is beyond this "pre-prototype" (almost tutorial-y) state.

I could be wrong of course, and it may be true that your work will change very soon. Maybe someone else has better examples to propose ?

Fair to me, we agree more than you may think !

I didn't say [learn piano = don't learn piano].

What I said is the banal : no matter how you're skilled, there's no guarantee of success, and in the small window of opportunity that is "becoming successful", there are (maybe normally distributed) skilled and non skilled people.

Not sure about "most overnight successes are 20 years in the making"; if I want to be perfectly rationnal, I recognize that this sentence is often false (but don't have the data to analyze this in depth, I would love to be able to check this though).

I don't want to offend you by any mean, but we have a tendency to pick up some examples and to hallucinate something from that few examples (which is a natural and quasi-reasonable thing to do when you have a sufficient large dataset); here you tell me about Louis CK, and while it can be true that they did better over time, I am pretty sure we can find counterexemples of this, no ? I imagine that's not a rare thing to meet people that prefer early-xxxx more than later-xxxx.

> Ask anyone successful.

I decided to erase what I meant to answer here (maybe it's time to move on haha).

Well, I think I understood you position, I'm glad we took the time to talk. The internet is full of these opportunities and I enjoy that from time to time, even if thinking in a language I master less than my main one is always tiresome and somewhat "violent" (I feel dumber in English ?). (Wow, it's late in Australia !)

--- part2

> [spotify streams]

To me, we're in a difficult position because the only way you have to quantify the value of an artwork (music in this case) is the number of streams it has.

Call me a mad man but it is not rare for me to hate most streamed music and to prefer <none> streamed music.

Yet I seriously doubt I am "musically dumb".

What I find instead is that advertisment, reputation, exposure, a good label, radio streams will get you a long way to become a <most streamed> artist.

And no, that's not "an excuse" to not try and become skilled... What sense does it make to say "Dua Lippa is better skilled than J.S.Bach because she has more streams" (or the contrary) or "AC/DC is better skilled than Alan Vega because they sold more disks" (or the contrary).

> If I just mash my hand on the piano with no skill

Okay, that's pretty sure.

Now if you wrote a small piano piece, there is no way you could predict if it will become a hit or not. It depends on factors that are really far from being limited to "the piece in question".

I'm happy because there is a misunderstanding of my words here. I am not saying that the ethos of the artist should be "taste is random". In fact the act of being an artist is to embrace biases.

I agree with the Kant interpretation of aesthetics as a "teleologic" thing : there is no objective "beauty" yet we perpetually fail to embrace this and instead, when we find something "beautiful" we consider this judgement as if it was universal, absolute and objective (when it is not).

On the other hand, to complete this, I agree with Wittgenstein when he says that "you cannot SAY anything about aesthetics/ethics".

These two ideas aren't forming any paradox.

> Create for the people right now.

I would prefer :

Set your own dogma or not, but do what you feel you want to do, be it creating for others, for yourself (you abominable narcissus), for your cat, for the banana you just eaten, or for whatever supreme being you chose to believe in.

Choose your audience, let an audience choose you, or choose to be alone, whatever fits for you.

> The truth is somewhere in the middle

Of course everything is subjective. The fact we're social animals creates the feeling that there's some kind of rules, but that's just a bias. We're biased. There is no absolute junk art-artefact, because humanity potentially extends timewise to so many instances of different humans that you cannot know in advance if something will be considered "good" at some point in time, culture, individusl brain etc...

> Both of these extremes position will result in bad work.

That's absurd, if someone "conform exactly to whatever the audience wants" then everyone in the audience would be pleased, how could it be bad work ?

Side note. Is it really possible for some artist to forget the audience ? I mean "however you want without any regard for them" is possible, but due to the fact you write as you want, it would be an absolute masterclass if you succeeded to be not cared about by anyone.

But yeah, that's not constituent of what is an artwork or not. This discussion is useless to the artist.

> [clown class]

Okay, but mondialization, hegemony of certain cultures etc... Are we truly different cultures ? I don't think so. But anyway, that's not the problem.

The problem is that you were using this example to justify the fact that taste is not relative. I accept that a group of clown students got impressed by the same clowns. But I don't accept that there wouldn't be some differences if the whole humanity (past and future) voted that day.

> [Australia]

Greetings from europe !

Maybe this behavior should be adopted once a certain relative altitude is reached.

Otherwise, yes ... I can see a world where this procedure is catastrophic.

> You don't need to be a standup comedian yourself to spot bad comedy.

I am not a native english speaker, I don't know anything about humourous form of language in that tongue.

Charisma depends on your audience, and audiences can differ quite a lot. There is no "right/wrong" because what please you as an audience may be considered wrong by another one. "Writing in a more engaging way" aka changing your conceptions of what is right/wrong in order to conform to the current cultural supremacia that is built up everyday by pushing some kind of fast-food culture or idk.

Your story is interesting, and I don't understand how you could be surprised : people that go to clowning classes can share the same taste about what is good/bad ? That's not a very surprising fact ! If you had told me that they were people from different cultures ...

Do you think Baudelaire cared about engagement ? You talked like there were no way taste could dramatically change to the point "ugly" is becoming "good" or vice-versa. Some of the writers and artists I like the most braved the taste™ of the different hegemonic culture of their time, and just trusted their own intuition of what they did want to express, say, create.

Marcel Duchamp is a great example of how a mid level joke can change the art world suddenly (and people's taste with it).

When I write in my native tongue I avoid mentionning myself and try to disappear from the text; "I", "me", "my" is forbidden and also I try to compress sentences into the smallest most precise set of words — being precise and concise is the funniest writing game.

But is there a real connection between being wrong and not being read or are you yourself wrong ?

Furthermore, I doubt there are any chances "right/wrong" applies to aesthetical types of philosophical discussions.

Mh... that's interesting and I would like to work on that on week ends.

We do have so much cool tech nowadays that I don't understand why I find this that cool.

This is cooler than cool.

If that's SMS autocomplete, then chatLLMs are just SMS autocomplete with sugar on top.

It would be great that the drone had some kind of tactile sensibility.

Go slowly in the opposite direction of said contact first, then if that is not working try to rotate on one of the horizontal axis while going in the opposite direction to see if it make a difference, and if it doesn't then something is stuck on your skin, and you should be able to notice that your weight is not the same as before; if that's not the case, then maybe your sensor is just broken, but then maybe you could be able to notice some difference in the power consumption of the tactile components array, and if that's not the case ... well, maybe that sensor is off too ? Wait ... what are you doing in Madrid ?

search: Emacs

  Did you mean vim ?

  (vice-versa)

> Together we'll make X great again!

But isn't the problem of X a problem of responsabilities breadth ? I.e. a philosophical problem rather than a "implementation" one ?

(For my part I haven't switched to wayland yet, and still use BSPWM)

I still have problems running some VSTs with yabridge (could be fixed in an afternoon, but it's important that people should know that it's not a plug and play experience).

In case of Bach, we know at least that the "dance" suite weren't meant for "social dancing" due to the fact they are highly stylized.

I also play the Segovia transcript more than the urtext version (some would argue that this is kitch or innapropriate, but yeah ... why would I care ?)

Well, you surely also are a Sonata No.1 [BWV 1001] enjoyer, aren't you ? I find the four movement to be exceptionnally good, and they cover a lot of ground.

What pieces do you know ? I mostly listen violin/lute partitas (I sometimes prefer them transcribed to classical guitars (I really enjoy Vidovic and Bream renditions)). I do really like the simplicity of such pieces, which I find to be very lyrical, of course in a far different manner than e.g. Vivaldi...

The chaconne from the 2nd partita in D minor [BWV 1004] I find very powerful; very different from the Brandburg Concertos, which I tend to fancy less.

I mean, of course in the thousand of pieces he wrote, there are pieces that you won't like, and "greatest composer" is an impossible and absurd proposition.