mikolajw

I also use backtrack-free cursive too for my own personal notes, by not dotting i, j, and just not stopping to press pen when moving to dash t.

One problem I had was that dotless i tended to blend in with neighboring characters, e.g. "in" looked like "m", "ij" looked like "y". I solved that by elongating "i" downwards. This made it unintelligible for other people, so I only use it in my own personal notes.

I think you can do that with undoredo by doing all the following:

- Having one history bistack for each user or permissions group to enforce ownership;

- Giving each new object's a unique key (e.g. from a counter, possibly a persistent one) to prevent key collisions by avoiding ever trying to fill the same container slot more than once;

- Storing the objects in a sparse container such as BTreeMap, BTreeSet, HashMap, HashSet to avoid visiting emptied slots when iterating over all the elements.

I have not tested this, but it could be a nice case to add to examples.

(having used a bullet list I immediately feel the need to explain myself: this message was whole written by hand)

To answer the usual question these days: the library, including the README which you can read, was written by hand, without LLM usage. I only played somewhat with Codex later on when creating derive macros and with some tests and examples, but that was all also highly manual.

The style of the website reminds me of https://faircoding.com/ai/, which I suppose is an example of these recent LLM-generated websites you're talking about. It likewise has dark background and semi-transparent cards with thin non-transparent borders.

Thanks for correcting me, I should have read the interview more carefully.

>That's not how you title software. You don't say "The Photoshop" or "The EMACS."

Nitpick: The Sims, The WELL, TheFacebook are all attestable. But yeah, fair.

>The number one association most of the population of Earth have with the word "GIMP" is:

>Bring Out the Gimp - Pulp Fiction (9/12) Movie CLIP (1994) HD:

I suppose that here you didn't mean that most of the population of Earth watched and understood the English version of Pulp Fiction, or that the majority of people in the world will associate the word "gimp" with anything else than the graphics editor (certainly neither would be true), but that the second most-common association among all anglophones taken together after the GIMP editor itself is the Gimp character from Pulp Fiction.

>"Is this derogatory or offensive?" is a basic localization question that is constantly asked in many languages. Yes, including Arabic.

While it is pragmatic to chose new names to be appealing to members of dominant societies (I do that too), it is problematic when dominant groups view themselves as entitled to that, which is the case here, and which is why we have this discussion.

>The intent was offense.

First, I am not aware of any evidence that there was an intent to offend. The only source for etymology I know here is an old interview with one of the original developers where he said that he blended the words GNU and Image Manipulation Program, and soon afterwards realized that he heard that word before in a film. There was no suggestion there that he wanted to upset others.

And even if the name was really intended to be edgy, the current developers, who have inherited the codebase from the original authors over two decades ago, view it differently and dissasociate themselves from that etymology in the FAQ. This should be sufficient to close this line of reasoning.

Finally, regarding adoption: I can't tell for sure what it is like for graphics editors, but I haven't ever seen anyone not using SRAM memory and OSRAM lightbulbs in Poland because their names are sordophonic to Polish verbs about defecation (in fact, because of that OSRAM is the only lightbulb brand that I can name from memory). Or even anyone complaining about that, apart from being amused. And I wouldn't dare to demand for these names to change just because they have dirty associations in my language when read a certain way.

There are over 7000 languages in the world, around half of them dying or having already died due to linguistic domination, in large part English, each with its own set of culturally sensitive words.

To follow the above mode of reasoning without advantaging one or few languages, you would have to change an enormous amount of words in all languages, if not basically all. This is obviously not feasible.

If GIMP was a dirty word in a Native American language, or a native African language, there would be no debate. That we are debating this at all is because English has privileged status due to the Anglo-Saxon hegemony.

Hence, you are expecting us to give special, privileged treatment to the linguistic sensitivities of your dominant culture. Which is unfair, especially historically, because the hegemony was achieved by mass land steal and many genocides, which we shouldn't be rewarding by allowing further claims.

So yes, it should be expected from an adult anglophone to tolerate the existence of sordophones, words that are dirty in their dialect but not in others, especially in an international, multilingual setting. This is what it means to abstain from linguistic imperialism. This is what it means to tolerate and respect other cultures.

And to enforce tolerance, indeed it may be needed to view those who fail at this as childish.

I feel somewhat sorry to say this, but I need to be assertive here.

>how they are percieved by the outside world

The vast majority of the outside world does not perceive the name the way you do. Even the majority of English users doesn't, as most of them learned standard English as second language at school without being taught vulgar Anglo-American slang.

If you want to pursue linguistic sensitivity, the just direction is against anglophone domination, even if impractical. We should be taking power away from the most powerful and redistributing it back to the weak, not the other way around.

So, it is the anglophones who should stop calling people using a nasty word instead of expecting international, multilingual communities to adapt to their culture.

I've posted an earlier WHOWAS of jiatan here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39868773

Tukaani website states "jiatan" as the nickname of the malicious code committer on Libera Chat.

WHOWAS jiatan provided me the following information:

jiatan ~jiatan 185.128.24.163 * :Jia Tan jiatan 185.128.24.163 :actually using host jiatan jiatan :was logged in as jiatan tungsten.libera.chat :Fri Mar 14:47:40 2024

WHOIS yields nothing, the user is not present on the network at the moment.

Given that 185.128.24.163 is covered with a range-block on the English Wikipedia, it appears this is a proxy.

You can try forum-dl, a forum scraping tool I've been writing for this purpose: https://github.com/mikwielgus/forum-dl

It's single-threaded, alpha-quality software, and still isn't compatible with many forums and themes. But it can export WARCs and may just happen to work for you.

Though I dislike DeVault myself, this is a well-researched blog post that clearly demonstrates that Stallman has an oddly-specific interest in defending adults having sex with adolescents. I was very weakly hoping for Stallman's insistence on distinguishing between children and adolescents to come from a position of a broader youth rights, anti-adultist advocate, but this long, recurrent pattern of very specific insistence on the subject of sex makes it clear to me that, indeed, this isn't where it comes from.

Aw, I didn't mean this to be shown on HN yet. It's still very far from being usable.

You're right that journalists use anthropomorphization much more. But AI researchers also have a long history of choosing terms that are anthropomorphizing or animating. Here the name PLATO -- which evokes an image of an ancient philosopher, a human, who is by cultural tradition considered smart -- is used in the original journal article.

Terms like "neural network" and "artificial intelligence" are frequently used by AI engineers and researchers despite the obvious image they evoke. Sometimes they even call their creations "brains". Also note the name DeepMind.

It's definitely not just the journalists.

There are many ways one can argue for or against this comparison. This is mostly a matter of terminology. However the problem is that the field of AI has been for many decades consistently shaping its language to evoke human-like connotations in order to boost hype. This article's title is a yet another example of that.

"DeepMind AI learns simple physics like a baby" clearly makes an unduly image out of it. Calling it PLATO evokes an image of an ancient human philosopher. No other field uses as many bold comparisons to humans as artificial intelligence (its name alone is one).

Clickbait title.

I wish ML researchers (EDIT: and engineers and journalists) stopped using anthropomorphizing language. This has decades of solid tradition, but that's no excuse. Any comparison of a machine to a human misleads the public. Machines aren't like babies, artificial neural networks aren't like actual neural networks or brains. Machines shouldn't be given human names (PLATO is a borderline case).

I know this is like talking to a wall -- money requires hype -- but still, please stop doing that.

The big one, OPT-175B, isn't an open model. The word "open" in technology means that everyone has equal access (viz. "open source software" and "open source hardware"). The article says that research access will be provided upon request for "academic researchers; those affiliated with organizations in government, civil society, and academia; and those in industry research laboratories.".

Don't assume any good intent from Facebook. This is obviously the same strategy large proprietary software companies have been using for a long time to reinforce their monopolies/oligopolies. They want to embed themselves in the so-called "public sector" (academia and state institutions), so that they get free advertising for taxpayer money. Ordinary people like most of us here won't be able to use it despite paying taxes.

Some primary mechanisms of this advertising method:

1. Schools and universities frequently use the discounted or gratis access they have to give courses for students, often causing students to be only specialized in the monopolist's proprietary software/services.

2. State institutions will require applicants to be well-versed in monopolist's proprietary software/services because they are using it.

3. Appearance of academic papers that reference this software/services will attract more people to use them.

Some examples of companies utilizing this strategy:

Microsoft - Gives Microsoft Office 365 access for "free" to schools and universities.

Mathworks - Gives discounts to schools and universities.

Autodesk (CAD software) - Gives gratis limited-time "student" (noncommercial) licenses.

Altium (EDA software) - Gives gratis limited-time licenses to university students.

Cadence (EDA software) - Gives a discount for its EDA software to universities.

EDIT: Previously my first sentence stated that the models aren't open - in fact, only OPT-175B is not (but the other ones are much smaller).