em-bee

but compare running tor nodes, and especially exit nodes. that surely would be a good thing, so at least if you think tor is good then running a proxy should be the same and it should be normalized.

doing it in secret without the user knowing is what's bad

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-a-glass-plate-photograph-o...

https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/girls-scouts...

https://www.alamy.com/fine-70s-vintage-black-and-white-lifes...

this last article alleges that the bellamy salute itself was meant to spread national socialist ideology and the police state which is of course absurd, but it has some good historical photos that are worth looking at:

https://rexcurry.net/pledge-of-allegiance-scouting.html

whatsapp is a private network, not federated and only works with a whatsapp owned client. to qualify i would have to be able to call someone on whatsapp with a generic VOIP client.

this is comparable to googles text messaging system that is built on xmpp. it used to be possible that i could use any xmpp client on any xmpp server to reach people on google. at that point google was xmpp. but when they removed public access it stopped being standard xmpp but became a custom fork of it.

no, i want you to write because i want your authentic input. i don't care what you get out of it.

but none of this explains why we’ve decided that the physical production of every word, one keystroke at a time, must now serve as a test of whether a thought is human.

well, if you didn't write it yourself then it guaranteed not to be human, that's why.

It’s daft.

there is no alternative.

It takes one useful method of thinking and promotes it into the only respectable one.

it is the only one. if you didn't write it, you didn't think it. you thought the prompt, but that's not what you are sharing.

It confuses the exercise with the outcome,

the exercise IS the outcome. if you didn't exercise it, you didn't produce it.

the labour with the intelligence,

the labor is the only proof of intelligence we have.

and the movement of fingers with the movement of a mind.

if you didn't move your fingers, then your mind didn't move either.

It asks whether someone typed every word themselves when it should ask whether they had something useful to say, whether they understood it, whether they made the important decisions, whether they checked the claims,

if you didn't type (or dictate) it yourself then

you didn't say anything. you didn't understand anything. you didn't decide anything. and i have no idea whether you checked the claims.

and whether they can defend the finished work when someone else asks what on earth they were talking about.

if you had written it all yourself, maybe you wouldn't have to defend it. and if you do defend an AI text, then why didn't you write that to begin with? that was the contribution i was looking for. but then how am i supposed to know that the defense is not also AI generated?

all the same is true if you cite a lot of other peoples writing without adding anything of your own. it may be the correct message, but it doesn't tell me anything about you. but at least i know that writing came from humans and if you cite them correctly i can interrogate them directly. AI writing does none of that.

i stopped reading after the first two paragraphs. i am pretty sure i could continue refuting everything line by line.

(one more because i think i have a clever response:)

A person can type 3,000 words by hand and have no thought pass through their head beyond the need to finish before lunch.

yes, that is a possibility, even if not very likely. if you paste AI output however it is a certainty.

Another can dictate an idea, argue with a language model for an hour, reject six drafts, rearrange the whole piece, rewrite half of it, and publish something they understand down to the final comma. Under our emerging rules of literary customs inspection, the writing police see the first person as a human writer and the second as a suspicious package.

yes, you can do all that, that's called research. but it's only valuable if the final conclusion is written by yourself.

that's the same as writing a paper where you read lot's of other papers to research a topic. you can't just create an amalgamation of the texts you read. the conclusion has to be your own.

the functionality is still there, but hidden. roxen can reload modules but the reload creates a new object instance which new http requests will get, whereas old requests keep the old instance until the request completes.

however open-sTeam, a collaboration platform developed by a university in germany built a system of proxy objects such that your code always only interacts with the proxy allowing the actual object in the background to be replaced by new instances. in your own code you don't realize you are dealing with a proxy. it's completely transparent. it also stores the object state in a database creating full object persistence. the architecture is very similar to a MUD. they even wrote an object protocol allowing you to access the object from remote, so you can write remote clients that interact with objects with implementations in pike, php and java.

the university is no longer working on that platform, but since they released it as GPL i am able to continue using it as a base for all my websites and web-apps.

persistence and runtime reloading of objects are my favorite features in any language. i just love to be able to change code at runtime without having to restart the server. it works just like i am used to from my LPmud time.

care to share some key takeaways? not really keen on listening to a half hour audio.

freifunk in germany and funkfeuer in austria do the same thing.

i wish the translation tool would tell me if it can't directly translate a word because of misspellings or abbreviations. i learned that i have to write in a very explicit straight forward way, with each sentence standing on its own to make sure i get sensible translations.

and china. police in china generally is not armed. (china may or may not be considered a developed country, but i think that distinction is irrelevant. i am pretty sure there are more than three countries in the word where police is not armed, or where armed police is a distinct unit used only for specific tasks where arms are needed). but that wasn't the point i was making, rather, in most countries police simply does not get violent, nor do they have to fear being shot at, because of gun controls.

well, and pike, which itself is based on LPC so it has the required execution model by design.

the point is that LPC and pike are the kind of sane language being asked for.

LPC is a language that looks like C (the C in LPC) and there is even a general purpose language called pike that is a rewrite of LPC.

in an LPmud, the engine and the world itself including user contributed part are all written in LPC. unlike other MUDs that have a core written in C and an obscure custom language to define the world inside. this made LPmuds very approachable, and i believe the language and architecture is what enabled LPmuds to have built-in ftp and later webservers too, all written in LPC.

nowadays i am using a web-platform for my websites that is not only written in pike but also implements a MUD like architecture.

more applications making use of linux capabilities to restrict access would be nice though.

on the other phone calls are getting replaced by video chat with the various messengers, making VOIP a dying technology, at least the part that end users access directly.

i am confused by this line:

You need a Nerd Font. The prompt uses Nerd Font glyphs for the git branch, the language logos and the prompt character. Without one, those show as empty boxes.

this sounds like a nerdfont needs to be installed manually. but that doesn't seem to be the case because it just seems to work. and i don't remember installing such a font.

i also wonder what version it is showing when not in a git repo directory.

finally, how do i edit history entries before rerunning them?

what's left is adding the init command to the shell init script.

and it turns out that this is included as an alternate way to install in the repo README.

i really don't see the point of the install script. the verification it offers is of no value because if the repo is compromised then the install script could be compromised too.

it does:

https://specifications.freedesktop.org/basedir/latest/

User-specific executable files may be stored in $HOME/.local/bin. Distributions should ensure this directory shows up in the UNIX $PATH environment variable, at an appropriate place.

i prefer ~/bin/ but this is better than creating you own directory that needs to be added to the path.

believing that you can not change your character is merely an excuse to demand tolerance for bad behavior.