gtrevorjay

This feels like a betrayal of their ousting of Eich in the first place. I can't imagine a world I would do this and be able to look at myself in the mirror.

Being upset when welfare recipients think they're better than those paying is deeply ingrained into the party.

Equivocating not promising to protect someone from a third party's violence with directly threatening them is insane.

It's amusing how you can't seem to see that the power dynamics make these different situations that very much do not go both ways.

I'm explicitly saying "it's out of touch" for how the educated class would use that phrase. I'm pointing out that common voters vote on impact and this actually directly interacts with their daily lives negatively. NATO is an abstraction to them. As an abstraction they can hear talking heads argue it's merits one way or another but they can personally verify this policy is bad for them.

Of course I am. A military alliance is contingent on the other party remaining an ally. Even Democrats would expect NATO to be dissolved if by some shenanigans Putin was elected PM.

That the US abuses it's position as the primary military power on earth to violate other nation's sovereignty is wrong and might matter "in the final calculus" but doesn't change how wrong this UK action is in isolation. It does bring up another absurdity particular to interactions between the US and UK which is that the US extended an insane amount of courtesy of not "finishing the job" once it was the predominant world power.

Not to make this even more political but this sort of thing is exactly why so much of the Republican base is against funding NATO. To give military aid to a country actively attacking your sovereignty is unarguably absurd. You can go on an on about real realpolitik but normal people who have never and will never leave their hometown get inconvenienced by the collateral damage of compliance with this on Social Media. They rightly think "didn't we win a war?" It falls right in line of the Republican talking point of the UK and the rest of Europe taking our tax money just to sneer at us.

Thanks for the details!

The insertion of backspaces is interesting. One of the drawbacks of--say--Ardux is that some layers are accessed by holding down one key and then pressing others. It's adjustable but it means there's a delay when you want to enter characters on such layers as the keyboard has to wait and make sure you're actually holding. Conflicts aside, committing early and then correcting is interesting.

The Twiddler eventually got third party tools, maybe the Tap Strap can.. as well. Being at the mercy of an app service for what is for a large portion of users a medical device is insane.

Yeah, I was introduced to the Twiddler in the context of robot interfaces and while I can't find the study now, there were a couple showing that eventually the slowdown is down to the extra movement, which is almost exactly x3 on most chorded systems.

I use the mouse almost exclusively now, to the point going back to search/word/character navigation when a terminal won't pass mouse events feels excruciating.

Macros are mostly code refactoring in emacs. Things like moving blocks between brackets, repainting, stuff like that. These really benefit from sticky keys. No letter is closer or further from super, hyper, or alt because I hit the chord for the meta key and then the one for letter.

Looking at the software, it looks at least as powerful as the Twitter: in-device keybindings, holds, macros, etc. This is super interesting.

Wow. Unless I'm thinking of a different device, those were much more expensive the last time I took a look. That's super tempting.

Just giving a preliminary skim of the website, it looks like their alphabet doesn't include meta characters like CTRL, ALT, and WINDOWS? Is there a more advanced mode? When you customize things, is that done on device (just sending keystrokes as a Bluetooth keyboard) or do you need special software on the device you're interacting with? Learning aside. How accurate has it seemed so far?

I won't lie, straight-up prose is much slower. I can just about break 120 wpm with a full QWERTY whereas I can only do roughly 40-45 single-handed. Typing passwords sucks.

The big 'however' here is coding. I also have a one-handed mouse from Elecom. Not switching between mouse and keyboard to navigate, combined with macros being less strain (basically no hand travel and sticky meta keys) means I'm faster editing code to the point I just eat the prose cost (or use my phone keyboard/dictation to compose longer prose).

One-handed daily drivers are out there. We're nuts, but at least it's not Dvorak (kidding).

TBH, the the Twiddler layout is probably superior (though not by much). I went with eight traditional keys because it could be hand wired. The Twiddler approach is basically limited to soldering directly to a board, with all the issues therein. After about six months or so I would get debris caught under one switch or another and the Twiddler is basically welded shut. :/

Speaking of design issues (and talking about the BT). I highly recommend using a Nice! or other wireless/BT microcontroller. Not only is it more convenient but cable strain is a real issue on most microcontrollers. If the Handler has a design flaw, that's the biggie.

Super cool project. The siren song of binary input is strong: https://youtu.be/hansx2Bzxa0

I second this as a great way to get started. If you look on Amazon there are a bunch of cheap eight key macros (Lichifit makes one) that are built via layers of acrylic: a base layer, a layer that houses the microcontroller, and a layer for the keyboard. It's easy enough to sub your own micro and 3D print a replacement layer.

I can't imagine another cocktail party where my own one handed keyboard would be relevant, so here it is:

https://github.com/trevorjay/Handler

It's chorded, (based on the https://ardux.io/ layout), but I don't think chorded is really that hard to learn if you're actually willing to give it a week or two (which you have in any situation where you need a one hander).

The key (ha) I've found is that you want the keys to be as easy to press as possible while providing feedback. The Twiddler, https://twiddler.tekgear.com/ , is great for this as it uses light tact switches, but it has reliability issues.

This is a great project. Of all my one-handed experience, I never got to try a FrogPad because of the expense. Having a software implementation of the FrogPad is awesome.

Must be something in the air. I just started working on a DC VMU project this weekend (warning 8-bit mature): https://www.newgrounds.com/art/view/kittyhawkmontrose/boobca...

The DC's VMU is a fascinating evolutionary dead end.

You're absolutely right about this exception. I would even say it "proves the rule" as the technical act of playing an instrument is so transparently unchanging.

Again, not the same kind of wrong, and also not the 70's, but it is also looking like OOP is losing some luster.

Personally I agree with you that women's studies or psychology aren't sciences or even coherent subjects, but in the majority they themselves present as such and thus here I take them--speaking of good faith--at their word for the sake of argument.

And regarding lots of bad opinions in the 70's, that's partially my point. There was nothing in mainstream physics or computer science that is now looked back on as being as wrong as thinking trangendered people are insane. There's something fundamentally different (and you and I know what it is but I will here leave it unstated) that allows the humanities to veer more deeply into incorrect territory. To reiterate: this makes them a terrible educational investment.

Correct (and bonus points for mentioning Raymond, we should hang out). But, and maybe I'm misunderstanding but aren't you just emphasising my point? As you show, Rowling is in many way a good 70's feminist but according to today's feminist, she's bad. In fact, she's considered a monster. Compare to a 70's physicist: They might be considered outdated for not knowing the proposed extensions to the standard model or that the standard model was empirically justified but nothing they believe is now considered wrong. The only conclusion to draw is that the field of feminism/women's-studies is known to peddle... for lack of a better term, anti-knowledge. Rowling would be better off today being ignorant of everything she was taught in the 70's.

I wouldn't dispute that the field of women's studies has positively impacted society. So have the sciences. Assuming their impact was similarly positive, we're back to the question of where are you now if your major investment in these fields was 30 or more years ago (as a way of predicting what an investment today would reap). My claim is that because science is more additive in how it builds itself that your older knowledge is more useful today.

And I can literally say that many who studied women's studies and related fields in the 70's have had a negative reward. There is simply no scientific analog to JK Rowling and the battle between "waves" of feminist in the sciences.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I'm saying it's definitely moved. It's just moved in such a way that almost all of the new knowledge replaces rather than extends or builds on the old knowledge. Thus almost all effort learning the old knowledge was a waste and we can expect the same for learning it today.

Edit to respond to your edit: And I'm most definitely considering non-financial gains and losses. Consider my example of a PhD in psychology from the 70's, do you think it's a net positive to believe transgendered people have a pathology? Or that we should destroy the frontal lobes of unhappy housewives with icepicks?

Extending this idea beyond technical topics is why I stopped bothering to put effort into most humanities or liberal arts and advise those younger than me to do the same. Most new work in the sciences is driven by an obvious gap in current theories or disagreeable data. Dramatic exaggerations of "scientific revolutions" aside, the relationship of the old to new knowledge is generally as either a subset, a superset, or an approximation of the other. See Newtonian to relativistic to quantum physics. See set theory to arithmetic etc. If you got a PhD in physics in the 70's and didn't learn a thing since, you're still in a great position to help a teenager with their homework.

This is simply not true of a subject like women's studies or even psychology. If your knowledge of these subjects froze in the 70's, at best your attempts to help a teenager with those subjects would result in eye rolls and at worst you being literally labelled as evil. Why invest time and effort into a subject where the reward over any gulf of time is so slight or is even negative?

I love Parenscript specifically, and in general I love--as the Hylang project puts it--"Lisp lipstick on [language]" projects. I understand the sentiments that Parenscript isn't really Lisp and that "you could just use [real Lisp X]", I do. However, Javascript really did eat the world and sometimes being able to sling it really is essential.

Math envy often means people downplay syntax when discussing programming languages, but the S-expression syntax is why I fell in love with Lisp all over again as a more experienced developer. S-expressions and macro based tooling give me the confidence to refactor in a much more experimental and improvisational manner. I can move logic around or invert the order of calls without having to worry if the change will leave the code in a broken state. Yes, VS and other IDE's offer similar features (especially as they embrace AI) but in my experience they just aren't as powerful, flexible, or--most importantly--reliable as decades old tools that exploits S-expressions.

Parenscript brings this confidence and power to Javascript. And it isn't just syntax. The project goes out of its way to give little "quality of life" semantic boosts like supporting a proper "loop" macro and multiple value return.

I use Parenscript extensively for my hobby projects[^1] and games[^2] and it's been great.

Don't let the slow pace of dev scare you off. It's a cultural difference in the Lisp adjacent communities. There's this radical idea that projects can asymptotically reach "done" because the language is sensibly forward compatible and the projects have clear goals and aren't all agile managed CV-bait nightmares that want to grow into all encompassing "frameworks". At work, I comfortably rely on Common Lisp projects that haven't been touched in more than a decade because they do what they are supposed to regardless of how the calling enviroment around them changes.

[^1]: https://github.com/trevorjay/Jerrica [^2]: https://kittyhawkmontrose.newgrounds.com/games

I just wanted to say thank you for your and your colleagues work. It would not be an exaggeration to say that Parenscript saved me from burn out and let me rediscover why I became a techie to begin with.

This site most definitely delivers on the "fundamentals" it promises. Regardless of if you're planning on using a higher level engine like Unity or even something super simple like LÖVE, I would highly recommend at least skimming through. There's just no substitute for the low level understanding it maps out once you need to debug or do something tricky with 3D or shaders. Case in point: it clearly lays out camera matrix construction. Most libraries provide a magic function for this based on camera parameters, which is all well and good until you need to extract or modify the matrix itself.

This site was my bible for creating the 2D engine for Cat-Tastrophe: https://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/861234

I'll let my comment stand so as to not try to pretend I didn't say something I did, but perhaps virginity was an overly charged proxy for life fitness. My apologies. Just as weirdly favouring conservative types and less charged: living alone.