Even this is questionable, cause we're seeing it making forms and solving leetcodes, but no llm yet created a new approach, reduced existing unnecessary complexity (which we created mountains of), made something truly new in general. All they seem to do is rehash of millions of "mainstream" works, and AAA isn't mainstream. Cranking up the parameter count or the time of beating around the bush (aka cot) doesn't magically substitute for lack of a knowledge graph with thick enough edges, so creating a next-gen AAA video game is far out of scope of llm's abilities. They are stuck in 2020 office jobs and weekend open source tech, programming-wise.
Thanks for the read. One could think that the answer is to simply stop being a part of it, but then again you're from the genus that outcompeted everyone else in staying alive. Nature is such a shitty joke by design, not sure how one is supposed to look at the hypothetical designer with warmth in their heart.
No one's gonna solve anything. "Our" world is based on greedy morons concentrating power through hands of just morons who are happy to hit you with a stick. This system doesn't think about what "we" should or allowed to do, and no one's here is at the reasonable side of it either.
lest we run the very real risk of societal collapse or species extinction
Our part is here. To be replaced with machines if this AI thing isn't just a fart advertised as mining equipment, which it likely is. We run this risk, not they. People worked on their wealth, people can go f themselves now. They are fine with all that. Money (=more power) piles in either way.
That's a good principle though. It doesn't make the initial choice good today or even back then. But change is always a risk that may not be worth it, cause you have to make sure that the inevitable semi-chaos coming with it is at all times lower than what you have. And analyzing that may be hard.
Maybe this will help them move away from this obsolete Larry Ellison crapshot
This creates positive incentives, so yes.
Iow, everything probably goes as it should, really.
Apparently, it doesn’t have the described issues. I also use AdGuard on iOS/Safari and see only occasionally desperate ads. I expect ad networks to target this with mv3-hard methods now that it will become widespread, but up until now it just worked.
Apple and google did everything for you to not know about it. It’s not the first thread where people either don’t know about it or will read but won’t try.
Heh, sometimes you feel pressed between “but it’s just a default” and “who uses settings anyway”. Because the first group is blind and deaf to network effects of a default and the second to the fact that workflows and preferences differ.
What were these options? Something must have been very special to make a fork and not just a set of plugins. What was it, in terms of end-user features?
It was a selling point back then and the reason for a fork. Bram didn’t want to add async tech into Vim, cause async enabled various parallel-to-you visual activities. Neovim forked and did async+lua on its own terms. Vim later added async functionality, and I think it was the best outcome. Vimers still got shy LSPs and Neovimers got whatever they dreamed about in their separate emvironment. Good fork.
Things may have settled since then, maybe that’s why you think that this phrase looks odd.
Breaking changes and mistakes are orthogonal to changes to defaults and changes for no clear reason. This separates stable software from perpetual “nightly” one. With Vim you can update through a couple major versions before even realizing it. For me it usually happens after system crashes (classic reinstall windows twice a decade) and the vim config and my habits just work with a new vim download.
If neovim thought that something was broken, it was a very valid reason for a quick change. That’s how changes are made and I think most Vimers respect that. It was a proper community fork, almost a textbook example despite the initial buzz. Everyone got what they needed.
But if you refuse to update, it’s a clear signal for ideological mismatch. The usual issue with picking pace, as I see it through years, is that there’s often no clear finish line where you switch to walking again. The pace just stays like that forever and people start to grow tired of changes they were happy about.
Will that kill Neovim? I don’t think so. People who migrated to it (opposed to newcomers) were built for a change too and will probably “survive” all that. Is your method of dealing with it valid? In principle I agree, nothing wrong with that either.
My transition was unsuccessful for a differrent reason, although I still think that while being open to change, it’s ideologically correct to stay with ideas you are aligned with.
When I tried it, nvim-qt was hard to associate with file extensions on windows (required something like “-- “filename”” in different shapes and hours of regedit debugging, can’t remember now), then nvim itself had issues with refreshing on manual window resize and with autoresizing the window on setting ‘lines’. And a few more os integration related issues. It was basically unusable gui-wise so I bailed out due to no good reason to stay.
I was probably talking about that astro-thing that works like a christmas tree and was the main selling point at the time.
Neovim turned itself into a pop-blink IDE which some people never wanted. It's good that it serves the needs of its fans, but it's also good that Vim stayed in its own tracks. Losing Vim as it is would be a great loss for many.
Otoh, no-score sites mostly become either *chans or slow forums with lots of ceremony and zero feedback on anything. It turns out if you get rid of groupthink, you get rid of either group or think as well.
I really admire HN dynamics in this regard, as it has a few less obvious tricks in its sleeves, but let’s keep these observations to it.
Even this is questionable, cause we're seeing it making forms and solving leetcodes, but no llm yet created a new approach, reduced existing unnecessary complexity (which we created mountains of), made something truly new in general. All they seem to do is rehash of millions of "mainstream" works, and AAA isn't mainstream. Cranking up the parameter count or the time of beating around the bush (aka cot) doesn't magically substitute for lack of a knowledge graph with thick enough edges, so creating a next-gen AAA video game is far out of scope of llm's abilities. They are stuck in 2020 office jobs and weekend open source tech, programming-wise.