jlokier

Denormals therefore count as underflow and strtod() sets ERANGE for them, even though they they are legitimate values to store as strings and parse back.

Some implementations of strtod() return the correct floating-point value for these, while setting ERANGE. Others discard the value and return 0.0, preventing them from being round-tripped to strings.

Almost everywhere outside the US, Canada and New Zealand.

I read that article, and I didn't notice anything that stands out as different from markdown-mode (the non Tree Sitter version).

Regular markdown-mode also highlights everything, hides markup if you like, cycles section visibility if you like, fills paragraphs in bullets, etc. With poly-markdown-mode it also does language-specific syntax highlighting in code blocks, and even language-specific structural editing, automatic indentation, etc. With math-preview it displays TeX/LaTeX math as rendered formulae.

(Though Markdown's inability to nest Markdown inside HTML elements is a terrible default. HTML semantic elements containing marked up text is basically how I write documentation to myself, and obviously the right way to mix plain text-like markup with named, extensible annotations beyond the default syntax.)

I think most of the friction comes because you have to keep converting free text with bold, italics, headings, etc. between the two, costing time when you're moving notes, documentation, README.mds, code comments nowadays in Markdown, etc. back and forth between the two. That creates a dilemma: Should I write README.org or README.md in my personal project? Should I write Org notes about my work to help me track of WIP and notes that might become documentation, or Markdown blocks inside Org, or Markdown notes? What if I'm collaborating with others, or think I might in future? What about collaborating with LLMs?

It's just enough friction that I ended up avoiding Org for organising my work, even though I like the idea in principle and use Emacs all the time.

Linux runs very well in a VM on macOS. There are many good options for this, some free and open source (QEMU, UTM, Lima, Colima), some proprietary (VMware Fusion, Parallels).

But Linux in a VM doesn't get access to the real GPU, so model performance is limited. Those running on the CPU perform well, and those needing the GPU don't.

However, macOS on M-series macs is excellent for local models. (Maybe not as excellent as a box full of the best nVidia GPUs, but still excellent).

So if you're getting Apple hardware, like Linux, and want to run all of it locally, a fine setup for a machine to run local models, with agentic characteristics:

- macOS running one of the many local model runners. I used to use Ollama and Whisper, and now use llama.cpp instead of Ollama. Others use LM Studio, oMLX, etc. Provide HTTP endpoints to access the models.

- Linux in a VM for overall control and orchestration, with standard VM settings, and bridged networking so it appears as its own machine on your network. Also, in here provide a robust shared file server for shared state. Use this VM as your desktop and primary access to the machine, if you like Linux.

- Linux in a VM to launch ephemeral, volatile containers, with the containers using a memory-only tmpfs overlay on top of a read-only Linux filesystem in a VM disk image, with tools in this filesystem. Alternatively, a writable Linux filesystem in a VM disk image, with disk buffering set to use macOS host buffering and discard fsync requests. These settings optimise for container disk performance for data that's only ephemeral which will be deleted soon or on system shutdown. (You can combined both VMs, but need to use two VM disks to get equivalent behaviour, and be careful about VM disk configuration of the two disks.)

- Containers spawned within that second Linux VM can be spawned very quickly and run quickly, so are ideal for LLM agents that need a quick sandbox. These sandboxes generally run faster than a macOS sandbox, despite being on the same machine with VM overhead, because Linux is faster at some things. Teach the LLMs to store files and memories they want to keep in the shared file server.

Sometimes they do. From Gemini 3, some AppleScript:

  if something then
    if something then
      if something then
        stuff
      end if
    end if
  </if>

After about 10 turns the problem went away.

It"s actually SQL "ite" as in rocks, minerals and fossils. Their version control system is called "Fossil".

Company A publishes invention 1, when they know inventions 2, 3, 4 follow naturally in their own roadmap but those things aren't obvious to other people yet. Invention 1 is just a stepping stone in company A's larger vision, and it's not useful by itself, but they can't publish (or patent) everything at once, it takes time to develop them. It's also not permitted to patent 4 inventions in one patent. There are time, expense and R&D factors.

Company B studies invention 1, realises invention 2 follows naturally (as does everyone who looks at invention 1), and company B patents invention 2 before anyone else.

They can do this because inventions 2, 3, 4 are not obvious to persons skilled in the art who haven't seen invention 1. They are only obvious to anyone who works with invention 1.

The standard is not "if you knew about invention 1, would 2 be an obvious next step", it's "would 2 be obvious with general industry knowledge alone".

When that happens company A is stuck, whether they patented invention 1 or just published and/or used it.

With their prior art, they can continue to use invention 1, even if they didn't patent it, but it's not much use by itself. They can't develop it further in the directions they'd had in mind all along. And sometimes company B's patent and company A's prior art will mean company A can continue to use invention 1 but nobody else can.

A defensive strategy is for company A to patent invention 1, even if they hate patents, just so that company B can't use invention 1 when they need it in invention 2. This doesn't stop company B from patenting invention 2 before company A, by the way. It just creates leverage for company A to persuade company B to license invention 2, instead of company A having to abandon its entire roadmap and switch to a different kind of product.

> I's only your right to exclude others from it that gives a patent any defense... it's all about exclusivity

Yes, but not all companies want to exclude. Some even want to share their work openly as they proceed. But even sharing openly and creating prior art as you go is not safe.

The natural line of development they have mapped out can be shut down by others seeing the way ahead and blocking it, which is a strategy, as I said, that I have seen discussed in real patent lawyer meetings.

For those companies, "what is the point of a patent if not to enforce the right of exclusivity it grants" -> the point is not to enforce exclusivity over anyone, because they don't want to. It's to use the granted rights as defensive leverage so they can continue developing, publishing and using their own work.

When you launch the Emacs editor, you're loading an Emacs Lisp image that was populated at build time by running Lisp code, with the resident Lisp definitions "dumped" to make an image file.

The image file used to actually be the `emacs` executable you'd run, using a clever but non-portable mechanism called `unexec` to make an executable.

But as of version 27.1 (in 2020), the image file is separate from the executable for portability reasons.

Usually it's to defend against another company using a "blocking patent" by pursuing you for infringing their patent which is built upon the thing you patented, doing the next step which was always obvious to you.

So that you can continue building what you started in the first place, instead of being shut down while someone else takes your idea forward.

Not for exclusivity.

> My guess is that's a fake one.

I've seen fake Apple chargers in local shops recently, with complete Apple packaging, "made by Apple in California" etc. and only detectable by close inspection of the details, specs not matching any Apple product, device info reported electronically that doesn't match any Apple specs, and the tiny inset writing not making sense when looked at under magnification. So that sounds plausible to me.

I didn't have time to fix it so downloading the binary module has been the only option.

I had the same problem with vterm when I first tried it. The C module failed to compile, with a compiler error about a line in the source. As there was no downloadable binary module I fixed that one.

Some ISPs are reportedly giving out a /128, and SLAAC works adequately with a router performing IPv6 NAT, so those ISPs don't see a problem.

Mobile phone as WiFi access point is another common way people access the net nowadays. I've occasionally seen permanent installations, with a phone taped to a window. I've never seen a mobile phone AP offer IPv6 to clients, but if they do they have to use SLAAC-compatible IPv6 NAT in that situation.