"Create Project Idea" seems a rather unnecessary step. We already have a canon of CS exercises (sorts/searches, trees/graphs, parsers, ray-tracers, etc...)--all of which can be easily verified against their more battle-tested counterparts, and serve as superior preparation for the inevitable leetcode interview.
Learners need projects they care about, project they feel ownership about. Most students aren't motivated to do some standard project. In formal education, we make them care about these standard projects by giving credit. But that sort of extrinsic motivation isn't that helpful for deep learning, I've found. It'd be better if a student has a problem they truly care about, somehow. Unfortunately, turning their need into a workable project isn't as easy as you'd hope.
st is superb. Other terminals have more features (that I don't care about). Kitty is well thought-out, but Kovid has a lot of strong opinions that cause all sorts of problems with common software (like vim & tmux). Wezterm is also a fine piece of work, but the constant upgrade notifications turned me off. xterm is a classic, but the .Xresources / xrdb dance gets to be a pain.
I have used urxvt, st, and Alacritty extensively and I would say that to me they feel “snappy” in exactly that order. You are of course welcome to pick whatever metric you want to judge a piece of software, but I can not say that I have ever been bothered by st’s input latency. The input handling is done using XEvent and a call to pselect in x.c and I am sure a patch that does not increase the code complexity massively would be accepted upstream.
Luu also had this to say about the experimental setup for st:
> st on macOS was running as an X client under XQuartz. To see if XQuartz is inherently slow, I tried runes, another "native" Linux terminal that uses XQuartz; runes had much better tail latency than st and iterm2.
Maybe it matters, maybe it does not. But I feel like picking your terminal comes down to a lot more than a single metric and input latency experiment.
The terminal emulator is probably the most used and most important software I'm running. It needs to be enjoyable. I personally can feel the lag so its not good enough for me.
Anyway that being said I have some collegues that are not bothered by lagging mouse cursors and other janky stuff so I can somewhat understand that this might not matter to some people.
edit:
I just tried out st again on my gnu/linux machine and it seems to be fine with respect to input latency so I guess its not all too bad of a terminal emulator. Maybe it only sucks on macOS.
It's probably what ninjin said -- XQuartz latency. I use it on Debian, and speed-wise, I can't tell the difference between st & the GPU-accelerated terminals. On Mac, I switched from iTerm2 to Apple's built-in terminal. It sips battery compared to all of the others.
It was a couple years ago last I used it, & had issues with the xterm-kitty identifier, bold-bright vs. bold-thick, and the latest one gives me the following message when I run vim:
> [PARSE ERROR] The application is trying to use xterm's modifyOtherKeys. This is superseded by the kitty keyboard protocol: https://sw.kovidgoyal.net/kitty/keyboard-protocol/ the application should be updated to use that
The kids have had far less trouble with Debian/Gnome than Windows 10.
With Win10, they'd keep accidentally moving/hiding the taskbar around, toggling fullscreen, toggling the screen reader, changing it to weird resolutions, etc... Then when my wife tries to bring one of their school websites up for them, she gets frustrated by the whole mess, & calls me to straighten it out--since she's a mac person and has no patience with any of this windows nonsense.
Many years ago, a certain English professor told me about people who like to shove sticks up their urethras for fun. This article just reminded me of that. Memories!
I am reposting PaulHoule's (flagged) comment because it was a very good one:
> *I have wondered if the high Asian population is one reason why San Francisco has such conspicuous homelessness. Western religion has some egalitarian ideas such as “The King will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.”
> On the other hand if you think a person's fortune now depends on karma they got from past lives then you might think it is a virtuous thing to perpetuate people's misery.
It's not a very good one. Western philosophies and religions can definitely show this type of bias.
Some branches of protestantism do believe in predestination. It's also common to see (bad) Christian takes that suffering is a challenge from god (often backed by Job's trials) and thus a thing that may not need changing.
I believe Max Weber also covered this concept sociologically in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.
Isn't the idea that all suffering is a challenge of god key to Abrahamic religions. I always hear it from anyone religious when discussing that rational of why there is suffering the world when God can end it. And from my quick read of Job's story, it seems that it does exemplify that.
While the loving Father metes out punishment as a correction to his wayward children, the Son has authority on earth to forgive sins, and has given very specific instructions to those who would be his followers:
> If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven
> He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise.
Whereas per the great Eastern religions, the material world is Maya, all is the Self (tat tvam asi), righteous action is its own reward, and the Abrahamic concepts (despite many overlaps) seem rather peculiar.
Or to quote Sadhguru:
If you take in too much input from everywhere, the karmic process becomes very complicated. And the strategy evolved for your karma will not work if you keep mixing it up with someone else’s all the time. Why some who are in serious sadhana withdraw into a solitary cave or the like is because they do not want to complicate things. They understood the complexity of their own karma and do not want to complicate it anymore.
That is why you do not step over anyone. You can go around them. It is also a mark of respect. And apart from that, it would disturb that person if you step over them. If you disturb their energy body, they may not immediately wake up, but internally, it disturbs them.
All this comes from a fundamental understanding about life. No matter what you were doing – you were running a business, you were married, bearing and raising children, fighting a battle – for anyone who was born in this land, there was only one goal – ultimate liberation. Mukti was the only goal. The whole culture was structured around this. Many strategies were evolved so that you do not trip over someone else’s karma. You do not want to acquire anything new because you know the complexity of what you already have. If you undo your own puzzle, it is good enough. You do not want to complicate it.
"16% better than wav2vec2, 44% better than Scribosermo, 75% better than DeepSpeech" was more than enough for a good headline. Of course everyone was going to get sand in their panties over "284 lines of C++", and now it's time to pay the HN pedantics piper.
I wanted to specifically highlight that people can (and should) read the source code. I now see that this might have been a mistake. But I was hoping to share the joy of taking a cool tool and looking under the hood.
You cannot win. The top comments on HN are _always_ pedantry. These people will always find something to complain about or nitpick while completing missing the forest for the trees.
The question I have is: was Jaynes a closet anthroposophist, or is "bicameral mind" an independent corroboration?
If we look at this evolution from the far-distant past, when the ego was hidden within its sheaths as though in the darkness of a mother's womb, we find that although the ego had no knowledge of itself, it was all the closer to those spiritual beings who worked on our bodily vehicles and were related to the human ego, but of incomparably greater perfection. Clairvoyant insight thus looks back to a far-distant past when man had not yet acquired ego-consciousness, for he was embedded in spiritual life itself, and when his soul-life, too, was different, for it was much closer to the soul-forces from which the ego has emerged. In those times, also, we find in man a primal clairvoyant consciousness which functioned dimly and dreamily, for it was not illumined by the light of an ego; and it was from this mode of consciousness that the ego first came forth. The faculty that man in the future will acquire with his ego was present in the primeval past without the ego. Clairvoyant consciousness entails that spiritual beings and spiritual facts are seen in the environment, and this applies to early man, although his clairvoyance was dreamlike and he beheld the spiritual world as though in a dream. Since he was not yet shone through by an ego, he was not obliged to remain within himself when he wished to behold the spiritual. He beheld the spiritual around him and looked on himself as part of the spiritual world; and whatever he did was imbued, for him, with a spiritual character. When he thought of something, he could not have said to himself, “I am thinking”, as a man might do today; his thought stood before his clairvoyant vision. And to experience a feeling he had no need to look into himself; his feeling radiated from him and united him with his whole spiritual environment.
> is "bicameral mind" an independent corroboration?
Fascinating as it is, Jaynes' Bicameral Mind cannot be a corroboration of anything. The book posits and theorizes, but it doesn't really show, much less demonstrate. I loved reading it, but it's more a (pseudoscientific) theory in search of confirmation, rather than confirmation itself.
> [Steiner's paragraph you quoted]
Aside from key words of ego and consciousness, why do you think it relates to Jaynes? Steiner seems to take the spiritual seriously, at least in this paragraph, but to Jaynes religion and spirituality were an hallucination, and artifact of biological processes with the brain. There were was nothing supernatural about it; there were no actual gods or higher powers involved, just a trick of the brain.
According to my Webster's, the mere strengthening of an argument counts as corroboration. Jaynes cites research in neurology & surgery--such as the wada test & commissurotomy--as possible biological explanations for what he perceived in ancient literature. I think that counts as a strengthening of his argument (as well as Steiner's).
> Aside from key words of ego and consciousness, why do you think it relates to Jaynes? Steiner seems to take the spiritual seriously, at least in this paragraph, but to Jaynes religion and spirituality were an hallucination..
To-may-toe, To-mah-toe. Jaynes & Steiner are explaining the same situation (i.e. lack or diminution of the "inner voice" ("the ego had no knowledge of itself"), direction coming externally rather than from within ("it was all the closer to those spiritual beings who worked on our bodily vehicles and were related to the human ego, but of incomparably greater perfection"). That Jaynes attributes it to a lesser-integration of the hemispheres, while Steiner attributes it to different stages of development in the physical/etheric/astral bodies, is a minor detail compared to the world-shaking idea that human consciousness may have been remarkably different just a few thousand years ago.
Steiner: "man had not yet acquired ego-consciousness, for he was embedded in spiritual life itself" and "his clairvoyance was dreamlike and he beheld the spiritual world as though in a dream"
Jaynes: "Volition, planning, initiative is organized with no consciousness whatever and then 'told' to the individual in his familiar language, sometimes with the visual aura of a familiar friend or authority figure or 'god', or sometimes as a voice alone. The individual obeyed these hallucinated voices because he could not 'see' what to do by himself."
Different terminologies describing the same situation. We have a Yale psychology professor digging up biological explanations for a theory that originates in 60+ year old crypto-masonic hoo-doo (the + since a lot of what Steiner wrote is a riff on what Blavatsky wrote in 1888, which was probably just soft disclosure of anglo-american masonic ideas going back who knows how many years?). And I am not knocking Jaynes or Steiner or crypto-masonic hoo-doo, because it's all interesting, but it is also very suspicious.
I think that dismissal of a key aspect in the comparison is really stretching it. Steiner was spiritual; Jaynes was "disproving" the spiritual, in a sense.
> That Jaynes attributes it to a lesser-integration of the hemispheres, while Steiner attributes it to different stages of development in the physical/etheric/astral bodies, is a minor detail
This difference alone is huge. You cannot say they are related because of the flimsiest of coincidences that both discuss the ego and religion.
Nothing else matches. I'd say your question, "was Jaynes a closet anthroposophist?" can be answered with a "no".
On the contrary, or that's the vibe I got (since we're speculating now). He tries really hard to scientifically answer all sorts of mysticism surrounding hypnosis, hallucinations, "the soul", ancient humans etc.
I've been playing with this on Linux. Lots of features. Built-in everything: editor, viewer, searcher, batch-renamer, grepper, etc. It all seems to work. No crashes. FreePascal is fantastic for writing things like this.
If I were stuck on Windows without Cygwin (coreutils), this would do.
Short question: does it grab Tab keystroke or allow to use it in shell normally?
Lack of shell Tab expansion was the second reason I never accepted MC in Linux even though I was a fan of NC.
The first was the lack of F1-F10 keys in the sub keypad on the left side of the classic IBM PC keyboard in all keyboards available to me except the one I bought in '92...
Construing recorded copulation as "speech" was always a reach. That interpretation remains only a case or two away from being discarded. Until the money runs out, I don't think it will be though.
