junek

Fun is cool actually. That’s my hot take

Are you really comparing LLMs to vaccines? Jesus

Let me guess: you hold some crank views that aren't shared by the people who maintain Wikipedia, and you find that upsetting? That's not a conspiracy, it's just people not agreeing with you.

Please step away from the lathe

Because one kind of thing helps people and the other kind of thing inflicts pointless cruelty on the innocent.

And the regime loves pointless cruelty.

Garfield Minus Garfield has the same bleak sense of desolation as Goya's "The Dog". Just wonderful.

I doubt they think much, in general

OK, fun. What can we do to mitigate this until it gets patched?

I'm generally in favour of the joycons as a concept. They make multiplayer party games a breeze.

But the execution in the Switch 1 is flawed. They're on the small side, and generally fiddly. If the joycons for the Switch 2 are larger and just more ergonomic then I think it'll be a win.

EDIT: the joycons also being little motion wands was also quite good. You don't need a separate accessory like on the other consoles. Overall the joycon is a neat little package of functionality, if imperfect.

> you'll quickly learn you can't use it to block political ideology from the DM

That's like, not true at all. The X card is exactly for that purpose, the GM doesn't get a special exception from the effect of the X card.

As a GM, if a player reaches for the X card for any reason I'm obliged to stop and listen.

I'm curious what exactly you mean by "political ideology" in this context. Can you give a concrete example of the kind of thing that makes you uncomfortable?

I know it's a typo but this:

> what more could a shell?

Is quite good. It could almost be the tag line for fish shell.

> It is very practical to actually have a grammar

I fully agree that you need to have a grammar for your language.

> and thus the possibility to use any language that has a perser generator.

See, this is where it falls down in my experience. You can't just feed "the grammar" straight into each generator, and you need to account for the quirks of each generator anyway. So the practical, idk, "reusability"... is much lower than it seems like it should be.

If you could actually just write your grammar once and feed it to any parser generator and have it actually work then that would be cool. I just don't think it works out that way in practice.

My hot take is that the allure of parser-generators is mostly academic. If you're designing a language it's good practice to write out a formal grammar for it, and then it feels like it should be possible to just feed that grammar to a program and have it spit out a fully functional parser.

In practice, parser generators are always at least a little disappointing, but that nagging feeling that it _should_ work remains.

Edit: also the other sense of academic, if you have to teach students how to do parsing, and need to teach formal grammar, then getting two birds with one stone is very appealing.