(2) people who did see the original post but appreciate the follow-ups as fun and amusing variations on the theme, and therefore want them on the frontpage.
But from a moderation point of view we can't prioritize either of those cases, since doing so would be globally suboptimal, i.e. they would make the site less interesting overall in the long run. This is where it's handy to know what one is optimizing for (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...) and to have clear principles which support it (more on this at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46329337).
Of course, there is always room for occasional exceptions—we don't want to apply the "avoid repetition" principle too repetitively!—but they have to be limited, or the principle no longer holds.
If you* imagine a topic X that you don't find extra interesting, and then consider how much more annoying each Xi in the sequence X1, X2,... becomes if the deltas between Xi and Xi+1 get too small, and then remember that people have quite different feelings about which topics deserve or don't deserve extra attention, it becomes clear that the global optimization is to downweight follow-ups generally. I'm writing this in haste so I hope it makes sense!
Of course it is boring and silly for me. That's why I commented. The downvotes show the community agrees with you and disagrees with me. That's fine. I'm here to speak my opinion. I'm not here to speak your opinion.
I know about lucky 10000. It's the XKCD joke that is increasingly being used as an excuse to support every low-effort banal post. It's like modus operandus now. Party A makes a low-effort banal post. Party B questions why a banal post deserves to be on the front page. Party C says 'lucky 10000'.
There may be lucky 10000 but it's boring and silly for me. Good for the lucky 10000, but it's distracting to me when this kind of AI spam hits the front page every week. Show HN posts already gets special appearance at /show which I think is enough for this kind of stuff.
It is and I said as much. I'm sure these experiments are fun for the creator. From the downvotes I'm getting, I'm sure it's fun for the community too. It was fun for me too the first time. It's not fun if this type of experiments are on the front page every week. There's already a good home for these posts at /show. Pages can reach /show without reaching front page. This could have been one of them. But anyway others here disagree with me. So I'll go take a break now.
> I know I'm a bit of an emacs user, but for this I've been using visual studio code because of one extension in particular: Cursorless.
Honestly want to know how many people here use Emacs like this? I thought Emacs users live their lives in Emacs. I know people who move more and more of their workflows into Emacs with packages like vterm, EAT, lsp-mode, pdf-tools, etc.
Are there seriously Emacs users who only a "bit of an emacs user". What is your workflow like? How do you decide when to use Emacs and when to use other tools? VSCode and Emacs have a lot of overlap in their purpose. How does this switching in and out of tools that overlap in their purpose feel?
I use emacs like that. When first getting into it, 20 years ago, I was very much as described above - slowly pulling everything in my life into emacs. And then the iPhone arrived, and I started pulling out things that I wanted to do mobile: email, to do lists, and eventually notes, and recipes. Most recently, I’ve started doing JavaScript in VS code, as the LLM assistants are better than what I’ve got in emacs, but I suspect this is temporary.
I find the emacs works best when it does everything, but there’s stuff it just doesn’t do, so I do that stuff elsewhere. I look outside of emacs if I think the task is going to be done mobile, and even then, I generally choose a solution that produces plain text so I can do it inside emacs if required - but sometimes that just doesn’t work out.
I suspect a lot of this is selection bias: the Emacs discussion you see online is often coming from fanatics rather than people who use Emacs without blogging about it.
Exactly and that's why I want to know more from those who don't do everything in Emacs and how they decide when to use Emacs and when to use another editor and how mixing both editors in your life works out for you.
I use Emacs for editing computer programs (and version control, some documentation, etc), as a calculator, and for interacting with R via orgmode. I don’t use it for reading email, editing other documents (gdocs, wiki, jira, etc), browsing the web, or even interacting with shells (I might call sort from Emacs but I don’t use shell-mode or similar.
> A few months ago I started a new job at a company that uses Elixir
> In fact, I might go as far as saying that Elixir gives you a fun language (like Ruby) while leaving out the stateful footguns OOP languages give you.
I don't mean to discount the author's experiences and opinion in this post. It's a nice post with a lot of good food for thought. Likewise I want to share only my own experience here. Two months into any new programming language, it feels like a fun language. Eventually the novelty factor wears off. And then it becomes a boring language. And I say "boring" in a positive sense.
The daily driver languages should be boring. Should present no surprises. Get the job done and get out of my way. When we transistion from the fun phase to that boring phase, what matters more is how good the language is fundamentally designed. As an example in Elixir the pattern matching abilities are great but I don't know if I could justify choosing a language without compile-time type safety in this day and age!
Emacs being Emacs it is possible to change how Emacs behaves for every key you type. Evil mode is a fantastic example of how you can emulate most of Vi within Emacs! But it's not the only game in town.
If you don't want to buy into the whole Vi and modal editing thing there are plethora of packages to have better key bindings. To name a few: god-mode, devil-mode, meow, hydra, general, spacemacs. Pick any from this and you don't have to worry about key chording anymore.
Yes, sooner or later this is going to become the future of GPT in applications. The models are going to be embedded directly within the applications.
I'm hoping for more progress in the performance of vectorized computing so that both model training and usage can become cheaper. If that happens, I am hopeful we are going to see a lot of open source models that can embedded into the applications.
Have you looked at devil-mode? If by Kraken you mean key chords, devil-mode lets you type without key chords but it does not force modal editing on you.
What are some other notable and open formats for notating scores? I'd like to know the what the popular formats are, do a survey and choose one for my own work.
ABC is the other major player in the space besides MusicXML and Lilypond.
The Mutopia project [1] is magnificent but largely abandoned in favor of MuseScore [2] which uses MusicXML. The amount of music available there is staggering but locked in to their backend.
Unfortunately automated translation is difficult because Lilypond is very oriented towards specifics on how the notation is rendered.
And, if you are interested in general archives of music, IMSLP [3] (Internet Music Score Library Project) has to be mentioned as well, but mostly contains scans of existing engraved music.
It's an open JSON format that's being hashed out by members of the music technology community. It's not production-ready yet, but I encourage you to get involved in the discussions! https://github.com/w3c/mnx/
(I lead creation of the format, as one of the co-chairs of the W3C Music Notation Community Group.)
MusicXML is pretty much the game in town as far as open formats go. Lilypond is an open TeX-like format, but it's really a domain-specific programming language for Lilypond itself.
> If so it seems unclear where to draw the line. If not it sounds nonfunctional.
There is no line. It is just one long linear list. An undo operation is an edit to the text after all. So the edit made by the undo operation also goes as a text edit operation in the undo list.
This is the way undo has always been in Emacs. I wouldn't say it is nonfunctional. I use this in Emacs undo, redo (which is undo-of-undo) and it feels okay most of the time. It is good to know that Emacs will never lose any edit even if I have performed a confusing series of undos and redos. But it can get confusing pretty soon if we are undoing and redoing on the same edit too many times.
That is why many people don't like linear undo history and install an undo-tree plugin which makes undos easy to navigate in a tree. Yet another reason to design some computer/software history lessons so that devs can learn from the existing techniques, their adoption, benefits and complaints.
Can't you file a suit in a small claims court?