fileeditview

You would think that people could learn from examples. Sadly it rarely happens.

And yet they might become one of the winners "in the end" because they have near infinite money and others have not. I will drink tea and watch the show.

I did so and roughly twenty years later, my 4th attempt is "finished" in a sense and playing on lichess bots from time to time.

The process is very rewarding and there are great resources (chessprogramming wiki). To get an initial bot play random moves is not that much work but it is a good starting point because you can hook it into a gui and watch.

From there you do the move generator and the search and then optimization possibilities are endless :)

Aside from the question of what is right and wrong in this case you have to wonder about the daily fine.

Either the judge decides you have to disclose your sources or not. Setting a daily fine to basically discipline or coerce someone to do what you want by increasing the pressure over time is ridiculous.

Also it allows you to buy out of it as long as you are wealthy enough or have financial support by a "big player".

If I were a US citizen I would be concerned by such jurisdiction.

You have to trust that this really "deidentifies". Time and time again it was shown, that the measures taken were not enough to anonymize.

E.g. the parent wrote that he fears, he could be identified by his writing style, which is totally plausible. How would you "deidentify" this?

That kind of is a reason.

TBH I think the word is often used without much consideration. So where people should say ethnicity or ancestry e.g., they say race instead, because it is just simpler, not because they carry much meaning with it. This is true in German and English..

Also I think given the context you know how people mean these words. But all I see is wild jumping on some words without much context all the time.

For me it was mostly that these distros overwhelmed me and I could not get into their code. I had to "start small" if you want. Also I encountered troubles regularly because some things did not feed my needs.

I am not saying they are bad, just not for me.

And I think they make it somehow harder to discover the true power of emacs: bending it to your will & basically forging your own custom environment, not only for editing but so much more (git, mails, pdfs,...).

I understand that. It's very slow pace. I did it bit by bit over several days. But I was also often skipping ahead.

There are some good tutorials on youtube to start from zero. E.g. "Emacs from scratch" by System Crafters.

I only started using an AI to help fix issues or understand configuration problems when my config was already >1000 lines.

But yea there are several ways to approach this :)

Yep. I also forgot one important point. If you come from vim, like myself, you should probably use evil-mode right from the start and then just get used to a few important Emacs shortcuts over time and use them additionally to your evil keymaps.

No one will ever convince me that there is something better than vim mode for editing text (or comparable modal editors).

A bit of advice to people that have the urge to try Emacs.

Do not use a distribution. Yes I know.. you have read that before and then you used Doom or Spacemacs anyways. That's me in the past. And it never worked out for me. I always ended up trying to configure things and the whole setup was too complex for me, so I failed.

Over the last 10 years I have been a heavy (n)vim user but I tried Emacs multiple times. Always a distro. It never worked out. Now over the last year I was trying Emacs with a vanilla setup and configured everything from scratch. With the AIs this is super simple because they can help you get out of config trouble.

The experience was way better than before. After my one year experience I have switched back to neovim but I still have become a fan of Emacs and I have adapted my nvim config. Stuff like dired, magit, compile-mode I have found equivalent nvim plugins and use them now.

First of all I never said these things you claim. I literally said "ignoring these risks is BAD", not that they are absolutely too great or whatever. That must be evaluated per case.

However there are numerous nuclear disasters in recent history that show, that we were not so good at estimating the risk.

Yes other things can also be dangerous or deadly. But when a dam breaks people die. What doesn't happen is that the region is unusable for eternity afterwards. So nuclear disasters are a very special case.

> Nuclear waste is solved by burying it in bedrock in a location with no groundwater.

It's literally sweeping something under the carpet..

At some point in time there will be a quake strong enough to crack your bedrock or some other natural disaster strong enough to change the status quo. Then you have the disaster.

Probably it's not in your lifetime or in your area so you don't have to care about it. It baffles me again and again how people can just dismiss these things.

I am not even categorically against nuclear power, but ignoring the actual risks is just BAD.