aleden

Yes! This is along the lines of what I thought of when I saw ghostty.

  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42524537

It's too bad I don't use vscode. I think it would be cool to have something that can jump between terminal emulators, something that isn't shackled to a text editor.

EDIT: I seem to vaguely remember something similar to this concept from some anime I watched that depicted a "hacker". It might have been serial experiments lain, or cowboy bebop..

If you spent enough time and energy on it.. I'm fairly confident you could get the newest Ubuntu running. You'd have to build your own kernel, manually generate the initramfs, figure out how to and then flash it. You'd probably run into stupid little problems like the partition table the flash script makes doesn't allocate enough space for the kernel you've built.. I'm sure there would be hiccups, at the very least, but everything's out there to do it.

You could install Ubuntu 24.04 using debootstrap. That would just get you the user space, though, you'd still have to build your own kernel image.

Is that why I got down voted? This thing is header-only, I'm guessing it doesn't need rtti or have a big footprint.

Fantastic links. They should be at the top of this thread. This stuff looks really impressive to me. I'm not an expert.

I take it that it is implicitly assumed that code running on the server (which I cannot spot the source for) doesn't need to be available, to be trusted? (That there's no way you could come up with an attack through cryptanalysis, involving what the server does, since the security of the data coming from the client is all that matters?)

How did they do it? The idea for homomorphic encryption has been around a long time, but as far as I am aware the time+space requirements have found to be tremendous, thus rendering any serious implementation of it impractible.

If they managed to do it, they should open-source the code. If they made a research breakthrough, they should publish. Doing either of those things would give me the peace of mind that I need.

I went to ghostty.org and spent a long time staring at that animated ghost, and thought of clippy. Except this guy seems to have wider range of emotions.

Anyways, I eventually learned this was about a terminal emulator (which is awesome), but the ghost on the front page really inspired my imagination. I think it would be a good thing to have some kind of companion like that, when it's me, by myself, constantly surrounded by terminals all day. Is the choice of having the ghost be rendered in a text-mode terminal important? I think it is for me.

What I like about foot is the heuristics governing text selection with the mouse. I find that more often than not, if I double click with the mouse on some text, what it ends up selecting is just the part I need.

Yeah, totally. I find LLMs are very useful for doing stuff with the preprocessor, too. ChatGPT taught me how to use boost preprocessor (BOOST_PP_FOR_EACH_PRODUCT).

Still though, I want to see MyMapType::value_type in compiler errors rather than... Well, you know. It's going to contain the type of the key, the type of the value, the type of the allocator, just when all you want to really know is that it's a pair<key, value>, which I think most people know of as My map type::value_type.

For the love of God when will c++ compilers finally be able to output template errors that aren't completely expanded and are written in terms of the user's typedefs? Most of the time I spend parsing template errors with boost is just to figure out what the hell is being complained about.

Before #define ing MY_MACRO, do

#ifdef MY_MACRO

#error

#endif

edit: and #undef MY_MACRO after done using it, ideally.

Many people dismiss mathematics because they aren't interested in it. I definitely wasn't interested in doing dozens and dozens of error-prone problem sets that mainly boiled down to performing arithmetic. I don't need to do that.

My number theory professor was a brilliant mind, someone who had spent lots of time at the Institute for Advanced Study, and he absolutely sucked at adding/subtracting/multiplying numbers. And that was something he freely admitted. It wasn't important to his work, and it isn't important to mine.

In my high school we were basically only instructed to get good at applied math. Calculus. Which more often than not was simply "plugging it in". Most of that work is trivially automatible through Mathematica. When I reached a university, I took number theory and abstract algebra and it blew my mind that math was actually so beautiful in a way that defied explanation. When I took real analysis I finally saw the side of calculus that didn't seem like a waste of time.

One day, I went back to my high school and spoke to my computer science mentor back then [1]. I passionately asked him why we were never exposed to group theory. The answer, he said, was the SAT. None of that stuff is on the SAT, so it can't be justified teaching.

[1] The great Andrew Merrill