TheGoddessInari

Pipewire just works without needing the awfulness of pulseaudio, but there's also "apulse" to shim directly to alsa if you want more like the older behavior. But Pipewire is far more compatible and modern.

Lean 4, Idris 2.

After reading this several times, I've tried to identify if your satire is trying to meet the author's satire somewhere over the Atlantic, or if it's aimed at some kind of self-reference or in-joke that I'm just not parsing.

It demonstrates the author's point from back in the 1990s so well, but also makes its own biting social commentary on how often authoritative-sounding language gets weaponized by a majority to dismiss and mock that which they fail to understand.

Impressive level of historical continuity. The dryness nearly threw me.

This appears to assume that seeking diagnosis is somehow self-limitation instead of functional troubleshooting.

In practice, understanding one's neurotype can provide the foundation necessary towards addressing friction, dealing with environments developed exclusively for a radically different baseline, and getting the support and care necessary to have a reasonable quality of life.

The alternatives often lead to massive dysfunction, especially since it compounds with systemic gaslighting and being told that the hell you're experiencing is normal and that it's a character flaw to have any difficulties or differences.

The satire of ISNT frames the very real negative framing that was already deeply pervasive 28 years ago.

Given the author of the page, I would completely agree with her assessment-- especially given what's happened in the ~28 years that have passed since the site went up.

You "instantly losing respect" because an autistic person dares value her own mind when others pathologize is part of the point of why it was posted. The satire wasn't there to seek approval in 1998 in the first place, amazingly.

This kind of reaction is exactly why the ISNT page appeared in 1998.

Reading `hol.mm` made me grateful for Lean 4's general purpose programming.

I get the string substitution focus, and respect what metamath has achieved, but the bridge Lean 4 makes wrt systems programming has left quite an impression.

I wonder how many people mostly see mathlib4 & think that's the one prescribed route (ala Rust) when one of Lean 4's under-documented super powers is the ease with which you can roll your own light-weight low to zero overhead domain-specialized constructs that are also trivial to prove because of the dependent type system.

(Perhaps more for verified functional systems than deep math.)

Only half tongue-in-cheek, but they would only accept contributions from GNU licensed models.

IMO it's the same problem with Rust. LLMs are trained on vast quantities of code that violate Rust soundness in safe code.

LLMs are prediction engines: you can move the needle (heavily) on the predictions from lazy to correct by construction, but the defaults even on high end models like Opus are always riddled with shortcuts.

LLMs can produce coherent & safe Rust 1.92, LLMs can produce coherent Zig 0.16, but that's dependent on in context learning & instruction following.

You must be thinking about a different software.

Blender is actually much, much older than Thunderbird.

I try not to be negative, but this software seems bizarre. It's a Lua meta manager written in Zig, that calls itself cross platform (Linux / MacOS only), and depends on external gnu build tools, not even the native Zig portable retargeting llvm.

LLMs are usually too busy agreeing to push back on the ideas & details like this.

I still have no clue what you're implying that I was implying? Reading too much into someone's words is definitely a thing.

There used to be 4+ major browser engines. Now there's only two, and Google owns almost complete share & following standards? Google prefers their monoculture.

More diversity in browser engines was a good thing & standards were lovely.

Not everything has to be a slug-fest between #1 & #2.

& personally I'm glad there's Grok & Gemini to keep Anthropic & OpenAI on their toes even more than the competitive band of open weights models already do.

The corporate models tend to be defensive and sound like HR has approved every word of the script. Not a fan.

Because llms reflect qwen 2.5 heavily in training data, and that's who is giving the recommendations.