williamdclt
Other commenter mention stuff like yanking, moving lines, selecting blocks, word-level and line-level operations, scrolling pages, that's all stuff that editors can absolutely do (despite what vim-lovers say) and sometimes do it better as they're semantics-aware ("go to function arguments" is possibly in intellij but not really in vim, and vim block selection doesn't work in indented languages like YAML or Python). Recording macros? Intellij has it.
Editors don't do stuff like "delete the next 5 lines" or "delete up to line 38", but I find that I never do that in Vim: if I have to count lines or look up the line number, might as well do a selection as I go and then just press "delete", or to delete a small chunk of lines and press "." (repeat) until I'm done. More keystrokes, but no cognitive effort so faster overall.
Sure, there's stuff like executing some command you have selected and piping the result into your vim buffer, mixing that in with macros... Vim is probably the fastest way to do this sort of stuff, but I have use for that maybe once every three months? It'd take me more time to look up how to do it with vim than to do it manually.
If you really get serious with it, you can probably be much faster with Vim than I am. If that's something you're interested in, go for it, but IMO that's closer to a hobby than anything else. Editing speed rarely is the bottleneck as you say. Still kinda nice to have consistent keybindings across editors, and I find vim pretty good for freetext notes.
I'd guess that the Cuba side changes, so that all changes are localised to one airport, which is probably much easier than changes at every destination airport
Maybe not quite the same as in this case, the entity who names the square actually owns the square, which isn't the case in the gulf of mexico naming situation. But there is some grey area I think.
the corners of the internet that you frequent have much more eloquent haters than the ones I'm used to
What's your point, "asked" as opposed to what? It proves that the capability is there, which means that agents can decide to do it by themselves (unlikely ATM, becoming less unlikely as AIs become more prevalent in complex systems), and more importantly they can be coerced to do it if they take any user input.
Which means that flight booking systems are _probably_ fine (they're probably the domain that cares most about timezones and time changes so they've probably modelled it right), but many systems are not fine because it's such a common thing to get wrong.
...for a niche of customers, from whom the revenue is probably entirely negligible to OpenAI.
Not saying it's right, ethical or anything like that, but it's not "stupid"
It's like a non-cook not realising the role of MSG in a dish: despite the lack of awareness, they wouldn't enjoy the dish as much without the MSG
The drum machine is not all of the performance. In pop you'll have at the very least a singer. Even if all of the instrumental is machine-made, having a live singer definitely makes it a "performance".
Something I've been wanting in Typescript (and I guess it's the same thing here in Rust) is to type-check exhaustiveness of the known enum values, but also enforce that unknown values are handled. I've made utils for that but they're a bit awkward to use compared to native constructs like switch/case.
Indeed. And what? People do dumb things, that's a given.
What you're saying in this comment sounds _very much_ like politics, at least modern politics. There's been a few studies that suggest that people's position on the political spectrum is very correlated to their capacity for empathy for others (and in particular, strangers). First example I found on google: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10281241/ (note: I do not vouch for scientific rigorousness, I'm saying "some studies suggest that" not "it's proven that").
So:
> you and I rather take our family to Disney Land than feed starving kids
Speaking for myself, it's more true than false (although not that clear-cut). However:
> We don't vote for a political system which taxes us significantly more to try to stop people starving around the world
I sure do vote for that, as do a very significant portion of people. It's absolutely what I want, I am aware of my own biases (and other people's) to prioritise myself, and taxes are a good way to force this redistribution of wealth to happen despite these individual biases. That's kind of the whole point of the left, which is a very strong power in many countries (note: I'm not american and the "american left" is very different from other countries').
So "what humans want" is very much a political question: a very-much-reducted observation of the political spectrum is that it seems that right-leaning people want the best for themselves and their immediate social circle, whereas left-leaning people want the best for everyone.
It's not the only way the french eat snails though, in the south it's eaten in a tomato sauce (catalan-style as they call it, so probs not just a french thing)
My POV (and most people's, I think) is that software is buggier because software people are wildly unserious compared to hardware people (and other engineering disciplines like civil engineering). Which is an alright trade-off in the very large majority of cases, as software is rarely very important and is easy to update, whereas hardware and bridges are very high-stake and extremely costly to update.
> if you ask a civil engineer to design you a perfect bridge, they probably will. Ask a software engineer with all the experience and education in the world to build you a perfect podcasting app, it simply isn’t happening
The civil engineer gets to rely on extremely high-quality very-serious civil engineering work, built over millenia. The software engineer relies on shaky (ie buggy) work from past nowhere-as-serious software engineering work, built over ~70y.
The fact that the software engineer can do anything at all on such small and buggy past work shows how easy it is compared to civil engineering.
In my mind, saying "software engineering is shown to be harder by the presence of bugs" is akin to saying "LEGO building is harder, people build stuff that collapses all the time"
It was a very interesting read, and it explained a really "simple" strategy which I found very memorable: build 3 strings representing "all previous moves + one of the 3 possible next moves", run a text compression on them, pick the move that yielded the smallest compressed result. That's the one where the compression algorithm identified the strongest pattern.
I found it really smart, instead of modelling the game it went one step higher in abstraction and works directly at the level of pure pattern recognition.
That keeps coming back to mind when thinking about things like randomness, the "bitter lesson" and LLMs.
Could be wrong, but my understanding is that it does? Plenty of things in nature are not really evolving much at all (as in, variations are not selected) even over longer periods of time. What can happen to it is getting removed by something that evolved from somewhere else (taking the evolutionary niche, or making it unsurvivable)
But "we can't give something to users because otherwise they'll ask for other stuff" is not an argument. They're _already_ asking for stuff (templating) anyway. No one is suggesting that shutting users up is a reason to implement templating, it's the trade-offs of this feature that are debated. And if it gets implement then yes, users will certainly ask for more features, the trade-offs of which can be debated.
If you think that the line for HTML features is where we already are, you can present your arguments for why (tbh I'll probably agree). But "if you enable templating devs are then going to ask for more" isn't one.
So pissed about that. 10y ago I was a random young amateur musician in a mediocre local band and I couldn't believe that versioning wasn't a first-class thing, let alone not a thing at all.
10y later I do music again, and I'm daily frustrated that _this is still not a thing_. Also infuriated by DAWs not supporting collaboration, or fckin commenting (taking notes). It's insane to me, there's a dozen DAWs that do mostly the same things and not one of them has differentiated by supporting these _basic_ things (in terms of need, not complexity, although note taking really can't be hard).
This might be the worst argument for anything I've read this week, there's got to be a name for this logical fallacy
People like Trump and Hegseth have been saying that very explicitly in at least the past couple years