As long as no-one ever bakes—pluginlessly—LLMs into vanilla vim (or into normal nano) I won't despair too much.

Image description

Image shows user joined two weeks ago.

.
Yikes. Could be a troll (I hope it's a troll)

It's also insane to believe it should be a first class feature, when those who god forbid want to "opt-in" could simply install a plugin.

I mean notepad already has autocorrect, isn't it natural to add spicy autocorrect? /s

From a brief glance at the CTMU it fits into:

• not even wrong
• not that deep
• cloaked in really unecessary jargon

---

It's fascinating to see people re-invent the same bad eschatology, it's like there's crazed compulsive shaped hole in the heart of man or something.

The 100% mathematical PROVABLY_CORRECT proof of existence of the supernatural is at least funny.

It fails to prove dualism, which it then calls the supernatural for no adequately explained reason:

There is nothing new under the sun. Nothing a 3-lb-brain hominid does is impressive. Everyone dies and leaves behind nothing. If no God exists, all is infinitely meaningless. Fortunately, we can prove with mathematical certainty that the supernatural exists:

Would a 5-lb-brain hominid bring new things under the sun ? How about a 15-ton-brain corvid ? How about an acausal robot god wrought from all the ditherings found across the net ? If it is still so why are you so concerned with phrenology ?

1. You cannot be deceived that you are conscious.

So far so good, not too contentious, you need consciousness to be deceived, though I will note that it doesn't prove consciousness, only use definitions tautologically.

2. Consciousness, in itself, contains only that which you aware of.

No ? Not necessarily, that's overly egocentric. What about the Id ? What about collective consciousness ?

3. Consciousness is composed of perceptions and a perceiver.

A bit contentious, and not a very rigorous definition.

4. Perceptions are not composed of material things. Red is not a spectrum of light, nor a retinal activation, nor an optical nerve signal, nor a biochemical process in your brain: it is only the experience the perceiver calls “red”.

Qualia != Perceptions, but this is not the worst sin in this "proof".

5. The perceiver is not composed of material things. Neither quarks, nor atoms, nor molecules, nor cells, nor organs of the brain, nor the brain > itself experiences red. Associated processes happen, but only the perceiver experience red. To say that a material object “perceives” anything is a category error.

Does a perceiver without a body even exist ? I'm not really a monist myself, but this is clearly a leap.

6. Therefore, your consciousness undeniably exists, but it is not material.

Again does it exist untethered from the material ?

7. That which exists, yet is not material, is supernatural.

Hum no ? At best preternatural, and even then if you think the natural world follows Dualism, then the spiritual is still natural. I mean yes this arguing about definitions, but by god is this silly.

8. The supernatural exists.

QED.

You can take solace in the fact that mxcl hasn't contributed to brew since 2012 (I guess the world ended) at least in terms of commits.

EDIT: Even if they are better at PR the mere fact that they would be onboard with tea and AI generated logos/descriptions foisted on projects that didn't ask for them, and acting confused when people are justifiably angry, shows a disturbing lack of care and consideration. (Paired with I take it incorrect installation scripts even)

It's "fun" to see them fail to grasp that a journalist (or outsider) doesn't need to have read all their blogposts, and that "who talks to who" is basic journalism.

If only you read those glorious posts you would be enlightened, and if you somehow still disagree then you are either a liar, an NPC, or have not read them carefully enough, which I can prove by using shibboleths on our communities accepted doctrine.

It always boggles the mind when people fail to grasps others as being real.

One (simpler) explanation is that proving an absence of something is almost impossible, and that attempting too hard would make them look a heck of a lot guilty.

There is a good reason why the burden of evidence is “innocent until proven guilty”, and yes this extends to the (in your eyes) untrustworthy.

Prove to me you never stole candy from a store as a child (or if you did, replace that accusation with any item of higher value until you hit something you did not steal)

Either way it's a circus of incompetence.

Not even that! It looks like a blurry jpeg of those sources if you squint a little!

Also I’ve sort of realized that the visualization is misleading in three ways:

1. They provide an animation from shallow to deep layers to show the dots coming together, making the final result more impressive than it is (look at how many dots are in the ocean)
2. You see blobby clouds over sub-continents, with nothing to gauge error within the cloud blobs.
3. Sorta-relevant but obviously the borders as helpfully drawn for the viewer to conform to “Our” world knowledge aren’t even there at all, it’s still holding up a mirror (dare I say a parrot?) to our cognition.

Am I the only one surprised they managed to enter the server rack room in the first place?