Is there a name for this style of writing? Where it's composed exclusively of simple sentences. Short and punchy.
Paragraphs with just a single sentence.
I know it's associated with LLM writing. This article probably wasn't written by an LLM. But still. It has a kind of rhythm to it. Like poetry. But poetry designed to put me to sleep.
Yes, this was super annoying to read. It was some core ideas and it was expanded into a way too long essay that boiled down to this guy doesn't know how to run agents.
I am definitely waiting for a "modern less replacement" in the same vein as fd, sd, fzf, and the rest of the under-20yo cli crew. I get that "less" is reasonably maintained still.
I think the killer feature for me would be refresh. I get that this can't work for piped input, but I want `git diff` to show in a pager with a refresh button that holds my place. fzf supports both refresh and piped input, so perhaps there's some ideas there that could be leveraged.
I went looking for a 'new' pager a couple years back and settled on this [0]. I've since gone back to `less` since it got annoying jumping between systems and having different pagers, but when I used it it was quite nice.
Didn't know that! I tried it and it doesn't work for me, sadly. Test case: `seq 1 100 | bat --pager=builtin` Result: immediate exit, no output printed at all.
If you want ‘git diff | pager’ to work like that, you’re out of luck. There is no way for the pager to communicate with git or the shell to rerun the command; the pager doesn’t even know what program is on the writing side of its stdin pipe. You would need something like ‘pager --command "git diff"’, where the pager invokes a command producing output. I do agree that it would be nice.
can you give an example of what you mean and how you might expect it to be achieved with a reloaded diff? otherwise `while true; git diff --color=always |less -r; done` gets you most of the way to what you are asking for
Realistically, I will be reviewing a diff, see a hunk I don’t like, change it, and want to see the change back in less. So saving my scroll offset would accomplish my goal. I guess I should add that I want to be able to quit as well?
Like I said, fzf does this. Bind a key to an action that effectively changes the file from stdin to a different command that it runs, while preserving view state.
+1 I actually came here hoping that OP had built a better `less`. Along with refresh, I'd also love to see mouse compatibility (scrolling etc.) and better performance when reading huge files.
I made a fun marimo notebook to try and derive these myself. I structured each cell in order based on the diagram at the end of the paper. It uses Sympy to determine if the function is correct or not.
Oh is that why it happens? Was wondering why the spot directly under my wrist was pitted into a sawblade. I also filed it, though just enough to remove the pitting, nothing like the OP did.
It's easy for me to feel the mains frequency while gently rubbing the top surface of the MacBook while it's plugged in. Really feels unsafe, but neither me nor the computer have suffered any serious injuries yet.
Really feels unsafe, but neither me nor the computer have suffered any serious injuries yet.
That's due to interference suppression capacitor in the PSU. The safety standard puts the "touch current" limit at something like 300uA (0.3mA), which is definitely in "painful but not dangerous" territory. You do need to exercise caution when plugging in other devices that are also connected to the mains, since that amount of current and voltage can certainly damage sensitive electronics.
> since that amount of current and voltage can certainly damage sensitive electronics
Like for instance the magic mouse. I've completely destroyed three magic mice by sometimes accidentally touching the mouse to the laptop. It'd not do much of anything initially, but at some point touching them together would kill the connection for a couple seconds, and over time it evolved into the mouse just refusing to connect altogether.
I'm glad my boss pays for this hardware because I'd be incensed to have a mouse THAT expensive break that quickly.
They can’t, it’s caused by the capacitors required to suppress electromagnetic interference caused by the switch-mode power supply. These allow a very very tiny amount of current to leak through from the mains side, which is then capacitively coupled to the metal case (IIRC Apple do not connect the case to power negative) reducing it further, but it’s enough for humans to sense it.
It can be avoided by using a grounded power supply, but because there are large countries that have ungrounded outlets in common use the most designs are ungrounded.
Why do only Macbooks suffer from this problem? When I had a work-issued Macbook I charged it and my personal Framework off the same USB-C charger and I only every felt the leaking current from the Macbook
Only Apple is insane enough to make actual laptop chassis with unpainted anodized aluminum. Others either do it in plastics and/or painted metal. And paints are kind of liquid plastics.
It's not only mac's suffering from this problem. My old dell latitude with magnesium case had the same thing. I didn't fully understand why and some people thought I was mad for feeling it but it was there.
It’ll depend on how well grounded you are compared to how well grounded the laptop is, where it’s touching your body, and your sensitivity to electricity which varies.
I once had an HP with an aluminum case and it had a grounded power supply but if you plugged it in without grounding his an adapter (sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do). You could feel it straight up vibrate while conducting current if you rubbed your hand over it. Not enough to shock me but it felt like kind of a shoddy design and leaked a lot more current than I've felt on a MacBook.
Is that what it is! On my pre-unibody MBP I used to run my finger across the body sometimes and it had this weird wavy feeling (honestly can't describe it well). I thought it was just a quirk of the aluminium itself!
Definitely been a long standing issue on many laptops with exposed metal parts. Late 90’s, if I used my brother’s Compaq while putting my feet up on the radiator, the metal speaker grills would give me mild shocks.
You can fix it by switching to one of the grounded charger heads. Unfortunately in most locales those are only available with an integrated extension cable (or as everyone seems to call them, the "gooseneck" cables)
It happens with other 2-pin chargers on both MacBooks and other laptops, but it depends upon various factors how strong the leakage is
It's also an issue on the new Neo. It was the first thing I noticed when I tried one in the Apple Store. I unplugged the power cable and it went away, replugged and it came back. I'm in the UK so I expected grounded electricity supply.
If you buy the UK 1.8-metre Power Adapter Extension Cable, this has a metal ground pin that grounds through the metal clip on the power brick. I switched all my MacBook & iPad chargers to this, no more earth leakage sensation from metal casing.
You wouldn't have this if your plug was properly grounded. Most developed countries have plugs that have grounding. EU via side pins UK via third prong
Apple avoids shipping grounded plugs as if it was personal affront to Ive. Also caused many many times for me to be shocked with electrostatic build-up.
> all my EU/UK macbook plugs I got from apple are always grounded, metal prong and metal side pins
The short version, where you remove the extension with the 3-prong plug and attach the plug directly to the charger brick, is only available in 2-prong in the EU/US (the UK thankfully still gets all 3 prongs in this configuration)
To add to this, I notice this more frequently in the UK and EU countries than in some other parts of the world (although it varies within each country quite a bit).
I have super dry skin and I also feel that weird ac effect when lightly touching and moving along the surface of pretty much any aluminum mac device since they started making them aluminum.
And almost no other device I've ever used. My aluminum Framework does not do it. My wifes magnesium LG Gram does not do it.
I have felt it on other things but only extremely rarely. It's bizarre that whatever it is they're doing different, it's probably wrong, and they've kept doing it in every device for decades.
To describe the effect in more detail for anyone who doesn't already know: It's like the case is alternately grabbing and releasing your skin at 60hz.
It's a bit like chatter, ie the periodic friction you use to ring a wine glass by wetting the rim and then running your finger along it. It rings because the combination of the friction, the lack of friction from hydroplaning, and the rubbery give of your skin, makes your skin alternately grab and release 30,000 times a second. Only in this case you are only barely touching the case not pressing enough to make any friction or make a squeal noise. It's like static electric charge attraction. Just touching the case you feel nothing, but move your finger along the surface and you feel it vibrate your finger without any friction to explain it.
It's unsettling and displeasing, which are strange words to expect from an apple device at least when you are only talking about the design and not the tech stack or corporate behavior. It makes me think of cheap electronics from a country with no consumer safety regulations that will probably burn down every 3rd house they wind up in.
It's probably harmless, but then again a lot of things that are harmless in short infrequent doses turn out to have been harmful after you did it for 10 hours a day for 20 years.
There are grounded duckheads for this purpose, e.g. https://amzn.to/4cnzuef (note out of stock. I guess your best bet is to use a UK duckhead, but half of those have a dummy ground...)
if you take the plug part from the brick you'll note that there's only two pins but the button-like thing is a ground
There's zero chance that the DC ground in the laptop is tied to earth ground in the charger: they use LLC resonant converters and flyback converters (depending on vintage) - an earth ground tie would defeat the purpose of these isolated topologies.
Can you clarify what exactly you mean? Skills are markdown files, so they definitely can't call APIs or CLIs. Are you saying that a skill can tell the agent to use curl to call web APIs? Or something different?
Technically they can at least how I'm using or abusing them - I ride windows so they have a generic powershell script bolted on to handle special API use through the skill to make it easier for the agent to call data up noted in the skill. does it lack full API details? absolutely. I have also a learning skill where if it has to go for a think / fail / try to figure something new out to grow a new skill or update an existing one.
skills to me suck when they are shared with a team - haven't found the secret sauce here to keep these organic skills synced between everyone
The packages that are actually compromised are yanked, but I assume you're talking about a scenario more like log4shell. In that case, you can just disable the config to install the update, then re-enable in 7 days. Given that compromised packages are uploaded all the time and zero-day vulnerabilities are comparatively less common, I'd say it's the right call.
The new ! just isn't as useful, and it's harder to get back to see the outputs. The old ! Was just a drop in way quickly do something like ctrl-z command fg.
I am always curious when I see these kinds of movement. It seems abundantly clear that the options on any vote in any legislature for a proposed bill are always “yes” and “ask me later”. So when I see things like Fight Chat Control, it feels like the call is “we must tell our legislators to press the ask later button!”
Why? Why has your approach not been toward passing active legislation that protects these rights going forward? Genuinely curious. I understand that finding and pressing the “don’t ask again” button is always harder, but I don’t understand why “we punted on this decision!” is a celebratory moment.
Less industry, more small coalitions or special interest groups. Any number of things. To name a few factors
- ideaological. They truly believe this is the best choice, or are fixated only on this choice and nothing else. They are putting their money where their mouths are
- financial. Straightforward one. If they need a service to collect ID's and you can get a government contract, that's big, safe, money. Or a politician is bribed and doesn't care either way. Companies find loopholes to sell data and make even more money.
- power. You get a law passed, you get more leverage to being voted into politics, or maintaining your incumbency. You show you can "get things done"
You can always find something. There's always someone profiteering from anything and everything that politicians could possibly do.
Politicians demanding total surveillance and population control? Of course there's an industry or two for that. Are they lobbying for this stuff? Absolutely.
But what's the causality? That's the ideological question.
In my view, it's a bit too convenient to blame all political evils on capitalism. Power is its own aphrodisiac. Bigotry has no prerequisits. Neither does stupidity.
Better advertisement. Like for example this new bill pushed by Facebook in US about age verification by PC. It will create a universally available API of sorts, which any ad corpo can poll and get more private information about PC user.
Same with this Stazi 2.0 shit by EU. I'm sure the data produced will be either directly processed by some corpo having ad interests, or freely gifted to such corpos.
Is it? Stopping is a matter of ground swell support contacting representatives and saying "please don't". Enough people do it to enough receptive reps and they'll vote no.
Passing new ones that "you like" requires lawyers to write laws, get those laws in front of reps, get them to agree to try and pass it, stake some of their reputation on pushing it, get the ground swell to support it -- which might be difficult when the current law is "dont scan messages", you can easily say "hey dont scan anything! support that!" vs "hey scan somethings sometimes", cause many people will call that a slippery slope. I don't see how they are at all the same process.
Stopping legislation means organizing a sufficient number of no votes.
Passing it means organizing a sufficient number of yes votes.
They are the same process and they require exactly the same work. They take place at the exact same moment in time and space, although they are mutually exclusive.
You're free to describe things however you want, but your descriptions won't change the underlying reality.
Yup, just look at the USA. Despite all chambers being under one party, the executive cabinet is still choosing to bypass laws to force stuff. Because waiting for legislation o pass it legally is sill a higher barrier than smashing he rule of law.
> Yup, just look at the USA. Despite all chambers being under one party, the executive cabinet is still choosing to bypass laws to force stuff.
There's still no procedural difference between passing laws by executive fiat, repealing them by executive fiat, or ignoring them by executive fiat. The first of those things is called an "executive order" and the others are called "prosecutorial discretion", and the culture traditionally views authority exercised as an "executive order" negatively while viewing "prosecutorial discretion" positively, but in the implementation, "prosecutorial discretion" is commanded by executive orders (the documents) in the same way that "executive orders" (new legislation from the president) are.
If you want to get a new executive order issued, or an old one rescinded, or an incipient one forgotten, the process is the same (you convince the president) in all of those cases.
> Passing it means organizing a sufficient number of yes votes.
EU Parliament can't propose legislation, only vote on proposals from the Commission. We'd have to convince the Commission to propose a law to prevent themselves from trying to pass this bullshit over and over.
>Why has your approach not been toward passing active legislation that protects these rights going forward?
Maybe because the Commission holds the true power and the commissioners aren't directly elected by the people so you don't have any leverage against the commissioners. You can't just say "behave nicely or we won't support you at the next elections".
That's not true. The commission do the bidding of the Council or other elected national ministers. Re-posting my comment:
---
They're just like the civil service in the UK, or any other country. They do the bidding of our nationally elected governments. Nearly all proposals coming from the commission originate from the national governments.
So a law:
Starts with member states directly elected ministers pushing and agenda or the council (again elected) agreeing to push an agenda -> Commissioners take this agenda and work with it to propose law (using EU civil service like any other country does) -> The law then gets voted on by the EU directly elected ministers, who are meant to (and do) represent the people of the states more directly.
Everything in that step is as democratic as any other nation (or nearly).
Most people really don't understand the EU - and yes, it is confusing. This unfortunately makes it easy for certain interests to weaponise this misunderstanding. I've spent years (and years) explaining these concepts, but ultimately like any other argument, this is not a debate from logic, everyone has already made up their minds on emotion or ideology and nothing will make a difference.
It is true though. He said "directly elected by the people" and they are obviously not. If we are being honest, the system where privileged few select other privileged few among themselves is called oligarchy.
What is true? There are many true statements that are meaningless in the context. The commission isn't elected is true. But understanding how they start working on laws is the context, and key to understanding why that doesn't really matter.
People don't want you to look deeper. They want you only have the most shallow understanding, because that allows them to manipulate more easily.
You kind of can, but you get to only vote for the full package i.e. the party which wins the national elections will get to appoint its own commissioner. Most people obviously only care about the domestic issues and likely will not change their vote regardless of what the appointed commissioner thinks or does.
Also curious, as much as the American amendments are problematic, they do at lease create a hard position on things. We are devolving into a space where I’m genuinely scared that the future will become entirely controlled by big money, and it will be too late to change it.
From my understanding Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is somewhat similar to US Constitution & amendments. Both do still allow government to restrict the freedoms granted by those in some situations though I do think the US Constitution does tend to set higher bar on the interference.
There have been EU laws which get struck down because they violated the Charter (e.g. Data Retention Directive).
Hopefully even if the worst comes to pass and the EU ends up enacting this law there are still the courts on the EU level and then the national governments and courts in countries where this type of surveillance is illegal can still decide to do whatever the want (i.e. national constitutions general take precedence over EU treaty obligations)
> toward passing active legislation that protects these rights going forward?
That's not something the "legislators" in the EU parliament can do. It's effectively a consultative body which can either approve or send back the legislation provided to them so the council and commision can find sufficient workarounds...
What would actually help is if a government of a country where this type of Stasi/KGB style surveillance is constitutionally illegal like Germany to speak out and tell the EU (and Denmark which keeps pushing this) that they can go fuck themselves and that they will prosecute any company which is trying to comply with these regulations. (which would be perfectly legal since constitution/basic laws still supersede any type of EU treaty obligations in most countries.
Disabling cache and then complaining that the bandwidth usage never stops increasing is certainly a take, but I'm not sure you can meaningfully draw any conclusions from it.
Paragraphs with just a single sentence.
I know it's associated with LLM writing. This article probably wasn't written by an LLM. But still. It has a kind of rhythm to it. Like poetry. But poetry designed to put me to sleep.
reply