I still much prefer LaTeX actually, I don't feel like Typst improves over its main flaw, i.e. lack of consistency. One could argue that it's even more inconsistent. I really miss commands, \section for example clearly does what it says it does, while '=' is more nebulous. I don't like that instead of typing `\alpha+c` now I need to write `alpha + c` it blurs the line between what is a command and what isn't.
So imo in terms of scientific writing it's pretty off the mark
Ideally it would tie in with an llm, no? Like you would want to be able to say something like "create a design of car suspension subject to x,y,z contrains"
You don't understand, the children need to be exposed to Nick Fuentes, Andrew Tate, and algorithmically generated suicidal ideation from Facebook. It's crucial for their development, actually
YC funds a gazillion AI startups that expand and augment the AI slop pipeline, but would hate to experience the consequences. It's very much slop for thee but not for me
I don't it's particularly hard to figure it out: APIs have been particularly at risk of being exploited for negative purposes due the explosion of AI powered bots
Natural language is a lot more, well, readable than say lean. You get a lot less intuition and understanding of what the model is attempting to do in the first place.
This perspective very much ignores economic friction. The luddites were a thing because, metaphorically, not every washer can become a programmer. These large scale analyses often treat one person losing their job and a different person finding a job as equivalent, which does not reflect any kind of material reality
It was never close. Its synthax is unintuitive and painful to learn as a science undergrad. If it hadn't been python it would have been another language.
So imo in terms of scientific writing it's pretty off the mark