foerbert

Same issue here. It's one of the reasons I've become so enamored with Ada.

With Ada, it's not only easy, but encouraged, to encode so much information in about how things are modeled into the program itself. Not only does it function somewhat like documentation, it also lets the compiler helpfully yell at me when I still manage to forget how things actually work. It's saved me so much stress and debugging time.

Now if only any of these 'safer' languages would add even just strong typedefs. Even if they don't particularly encourage their use, it'd be something.

Neither apply to game mechanics.

Even if all the WotC IP ends up with the most determined patent troll ever, the game itself could still be implemented.

As for the card art... who knows what the legal situation would end up being. But even if it's totally legally off limits, the ability to load custom art would render it practically moot anyway.

I don't get the hostility, nor why you keep trying to shove words in my mouth.

I never said anything about new customers, nor even old customers.

I've also been very explicit that I'm just talking about seeing a plausible possibility, and not made any claims about it's probability. Nor said I think any person or entity - WotC included - should actually do anything or not.

And I've absolutely not made any particular judgements on the intrinsic value of NFTs.

I get you don't like the whole crypto thing, but this reaction is way beyond the point of reason.

I'm really not much of a fan either, honestly. That doesn't mean we should demonize our own thoughts if they point towards a hypothetical possibility that some other people might find value in it.

WotC doesn't care if a potential consumer trusts their long-term business model, but they sure do care if the potential consumer trusts their purchase won't poof out of existence one day.

By throwing it on the blockchain, WotC could market it as the digital card being basically as safe from vanishing as a physical card. "Even if we go bust in 50 years, your digital cards will all still be yours! You'll still be able to prove ownership of all your cards, and will still be free as ever to trade coughsell for incredible profitcough them!"

I have no idea if the market as a whole would bite, or how deeply. But there is a not-insignificant number of people who count on Magic cards gaining significant amounts of value over time. Some use it as a way to justify the purchases, while others have turned it into an outright investment strategy.

I can only imagine that digital cards reliant on WotC's active involvement to exist would suffer significant discounts.

But maybe being digital is such a huge hit in the first place that it doesn't ultimately matter. I have no idea. Hence, why I said it seems possible.

I don't think that's the case. It's also a tabletop game so the rules are all out there in public and not even inhumanely complex.

Even if WotC's servers go down, you could use the blockchain to prove ownership of a card for use in a live tournament. It's also possible for a third party to create their own server to implement the game, and then refer back to the blockchain for ownership.

As for non-official cards, I mean, yeah? That's the case with physical Magic cards too. Not even actual counterfeits have held the MTG secondary market back from astounding prices. Meanwhile non-NFT cards would be the equivalent of proxy cards - cards that aren't X, but both players agree to treat as X - which haven't been any more successful than counterfeits in holding Magic prices down.

I'm not claiming there would be greater faith in a blockchain than WotC, I'm just saying I see it as possible.

I think it's possible they might see some benefit. It would basically hinge on people's faith in WotC vs a blockchain to administer that data. If the blockchain was more trusted - say because of concerns WotC might go out of business one day, etc - then using it might entice people to put more money in.

There are other options out there. Ada, for example, has extended return statements and - more directly - expression functions.

I'd probably agree with that characterization. It's not that people are out there specifically claiming memory safety solves everything, but rather that the 'public consciousness' seems to have utterly forgotten that any other kind of safety exists.

As a result, you get languages like (and mainly) Rust being held up as the paragons of program correctness and safety in general. Any discussions of program safety end up being entirely about memory safety.

It's just an endless hoard of comments/blogs/posts/etc of people conflating memory safety with correctness and not even acknowledging - or possibly even knowing - there are other kinds of safety out there.

So the rhetoric being referenced there is largely implicit. Anybody who actually mentions memory safety in specific terms is already ahead of the curve.

It's a hard line to walk. And I'm sure not everybody draws the same line.

The part I think LTT and many other folks with a similar philosophy ignore is that even engaging with their title/thumbnail isn't free. Clickbait forcefully grabs attention which requires every potential viewer to spend time and energy evaluating that option. A less forceful title/thumbnail makes it much easier to quickly and easily find the things you actually want to spend your time and energy on.

To make matters worse, most/all clickbait does it's damnedest to make it as hard as possible to decide a video isn't worth the time. Even when you know it's not worth it, the clickbait can make it extremely hard to actually skip.

So yeah, it has a real cost, even when the video itself is good. It's not equally good for everybody, and figuring that out has a cost too.

(And LTT in particular really pushes the boundaries, far more than most that actually try to not be dicks. LTT will sometimes draw the line at 'merely' technically not saying a lie, and blame you for hearing one anyway.)

> There's a lot more than a few paragraphs on the wiki

You're right, I wasn't very fair to the wiki. I would have failed out way quicker without it. It wasn't intentional, it's just been a bit since I was looking at all this. My memory had dropped the details and left me with just my overall impressions.

That said, the wiki still was a bit short on some of the deeper details. I remember a fair number of places I'd feel like the wiki had just enough to tantalize the possibilities but not provide some of the important pieces to put it together into something useful.

And being community driven, I was a little wary of taking it as gospel. Even popular and stable software often has some niggling issues with community documentation.

> I think you should try asking questions on this particular Slack before you write it off

I'm not writing it off. I have no doubt it - and you - would be very helpful. I just don't consider it documentation, in the same way I don't consider a knowledgeable friend documentation.

Part of the reason I didn't pop in was that I was stuck doing a slow one-finger hunt-and-peck on a blank keyboard at the time. Searching the web was more than frustrating enough to make it real tempting to ignoring the cost of typing, never mind Slack. And partly I admit I just don't like asking questions in that format unless it seems like a reasonably complex/detailed/weird question.

> point VSCode at Talon's Python interpreter

Yeah, that probably would have helped. My setup at the time didn't have much for Python, so I was mostly using the REPL and basic searching.

I think I looked at that briefly at one point. I passed by it quickly because it lacked support for both my usual editor and language.

But I've recently revisted VS Code and found it improved enough to be usable for me. My hands have also improved enough that I can do a reasonable amount of typing now too, so perhaps adding language support would be an option. Hm...

Thanks for the suggestion!

Well, I am a programmer, I just wasn't able to do much programming due to physical limitations. Admittedly I'm not much of a Python programmer, and I wouldn't be surprised if a deeper understanding of not-just-a-shell-script Python idioms helped me get a little more out of the REPL poking. But uh, still.

As for Slack, I don't really consider that documentation. It's not really usable in the same way. It's more akin to IRC. It's potentially very helpful, even when the documentation isn't helping, but it's not the same thing. Maybe I'm just old, even though I'm not that old... I think...

Anyway, I hope this doesn't come off too negatively overall. I really like the idea of Talon and I'm comforted by it's existence, in case my hands start acting up again. From my attempts to investigate it I got a few glimpses into just how deep you've gone, even down into the speech model itself, to make it what it is. And I know any interface to something as complex as this is itself a large series of extremely ambiguous trade-offs that's just painful to make. And of course documentation itself takes time to create, and then needs to be kept up to date, and all that. I get it.

If it didn't seem to hold much promise, I wouldn't be so sour about failing to figure out how to use it effectively.

One thing that might be worth considering is moving to a source-available model, if full on Open Source doesn't suit your goals. Having the option to try to figure things out by looking at the code could be very helpful.

I have some very mixed feelings about talon. I looked into it a decent bit when I started having hand issues as well, and never got anywhere useful with it.

For one, it needs to be programmed to do anything. This gets you all the options, which is wonderful, but also is a bit of a problem when you're looking into because you can't, ya know, program. And it's not a simple thing to interact with. Lots of moving parts and various behind-the-scenes interactions.

For another, there's virtually zero documentation. Like, officially none, and unofficially not much more than a few paragraphs.

And to put the cherry on top, it's a closed source mess of a program. It's not easy to get much in the way of useful information out of it. You can poke around some in a Python REPL, but that'll basically just get you the interface. And somehow, it's one of the most useful sources of information, as at least you've got something to go on. And as mentioned, Python, so you don't have much in the way of language-level guarantees to try to rely on to figure stuff out either.

Yes, there is the popular user config. To be clear, I'm not trying to be unkind to it. It managed to overcome a lot, and is very useful to lots of people for many of the reasons I stated above. But. It's also clearly got it's roots as one person's personal config that got popular. There is so much in there. It's basically it's whole own thing to learn on top of talon.

In terms of learning from it, well, it doesn't seem trivial. It's basically it's whole own thing, but also how it all interacts is all talon. You're basically learning two separate yet intertwined systems at once and have to figure out what bits belong to what. It's also got various bits from multiple iterations of talon's interface, so the same thing may be accomplished multiple ways. It's actually quite well commented in some places about this fact, which is really nice. But it does make you wonder what isn't well commented...

Ultimately I just gave up. It seems like a potentially hugely useful thing, but actually trying to use it required learning a bunch of stuff I wasn't otherwise interested in, figuring out the minutia of a complex unstable interface the hardest ways possible, and then spending a ton of time writing my own program/config.

Aside from the time involved, the amount of typing required was prohibitive.

So yeah. My feelings on talon... mixed, to say the least. Or most, judging by the above.

Only if you expect China to forgo their own development of these sorts of products if they are given access to them.

It is true.

The only way to preclude jury nullification is to infringe on the rights of the jury as the sole determiners of fact, as you put it.

Without adding another non-jury body that can overrule the jury on what actually happened, how can you ever get rid of the possibility of jury nullification?