I work for Mozilla, and volunteer for two projects:
- Solid, Tim Berners-Lee's new set of standards that aims to give people control over their data. See https://solidproject.org
- Plaudit, a project aimed at making more research freely available. (This is why you will often see me showing up in threads about Open Access.) See https://plaudit.pub
It was the second reading, but was it also treated as such? (Because if so, it sounds like this would have been a rejection?) If not, what is the steelmanned reason for doing so?
To understand whether/to what extent this is brazen, I'd be interested to learn the reasoning why urgency procedures are possible, and in particular, why the apparent majority against shouldn't have been enough, and what is needed to classify something as urgent.
I don't think it's just French. The million-billion distinction is different from English in many European languages - [1] lists basically every language other than English in the EU. And in my example, "actual" to mean "current" and "eventual" to mean "possibly" are at least also present in Dutch and sometimes used in that way in the EU.
I was the same, but did end up switching due to features. I'm not sure I remember which sealed the deal, but I remember at least being able to remove/change the left-most button that just points to an About screen IIRC, and updating maps without going through the app store? And just the fact that improvements to Organic Maps also seem to make it to CoMaps, whereas I don't think they flow in the other direction.
Not even the accents - different voices are annoying enough. When I was young I watched some cartoons in English, and hearing them in Dutch later, despite being my native language, was still uncomfortable.
I declared my blog to be `en-GB` as well, but I'm fairly sure it's neither that, nor any other pre-catalogued locale. There's just no way I'm able to know where any of the references I use came from, let alone which weird contortions I came up with by myself. There are probably a few in this short comment alone.
Ah OK, so the ACP connector ensures tool calls work with Zed, and communicates the available tools and their results to the harness, and then the harness mainly provides a system prompt and the API calls?
I volunteered for a project [1] with roughly this philosophy. Traditional publishing currently serves three purposes:
- Organise peer feedback
- Publish the work
- Recognise good work, helping with both discovery and credit
That latter part especially is what allows publishers to charge the ridiculous markup that they do.
But with "modern" technology, feedback and publishing really doesn't require all that infrastructure - email and arXiv can easily be used to self-organise that. So we built a system of recognition that does not block publication, and can be used as a layer on top of arXiv and any other venue, allowing peers to vouch ("endorse") for a work.
I had even proposed and implemented an integration for arXiv Labs that got accepted, but then never merged. I should follow up on that...
I never understood why we're OK with placing billboards, which by definition try their best to get you to look at them, next to the road, which we're supposed to look at.
- Solid, Tim Berners-Lee's new set of standards that aims to give people control over their data. See https://solidproject.org
- Plaudit, a project aimed at making more research freely available. (This is why you will often see me showing up in threads about Open Access.) See https://plaudit.pub
Blog: https://vincenttunru.com
Mastodon: https://fosstodon.org/@VincentTunru
Email: [email protected]