@rimugu I have solved the problem of ironing simply by not wearing suits. Win-win.

But not washing dishes isn’t really an option.

Dishwashers (and washing machines) are just not optional. I’m not some kind of animal living in a cave any more.

@gmate8 there’s no pride in doing things that machines can do better.

You say “convenience”, I say “I have better things to do in my life”

Last time it broke was last year when lead times for replacements were in the months due to supply chain issues. So I went through the whole “google it and figure out it’s the water inlet valve that needs replacing”.

There’s certainly a satisfaction in fixing things (“look, I can do hardware too”), but when the circulation pump starts throwing errors, I’d rather just not have to deal with it again. Once is enough.

Life is good. We have a dishwasher again.

Our old one broke (again!) and while I fixed it myself last time, I wasn’t willing to deal with a dishwasher that keeps breaking.

I grew up washing dishes by hand, and I’d largely forgotten how much I hated it. Ten days without a working dishwasher is ten days too many.

@Reiddragon @imikotoba honestly, I was hoping for something nice and clean, not some eldritch horror from the last century that has just seen more maintenance than uemacs.

Less LISP and “GUI wrapper to make it look modern”, and more “actually configurable natively GUI editor”.

Dear lazy-web - question time.

I’ve maintained a branch of the old micro-emacs (not GNU emacs) for decades. And by “maintained” I really mean “mostly kept working”. It’s a scrappy little editor from the eighties(!) and the “s” in scrappy is silent.

The version I have grown accustomed to isn’t even the most recent version of microemacs, it’s a offshoot from uemacs 3.9 that was maintained by Petri Kutvonen at Helsinki University because it was portable and supported DOS, VAX/VMS and Unix.

Over the decades, I’ve “enhached” that thing to actually mostly understand UTF-8, and increased some internal limits, but it’s mostly the same thing that I used in the early nineties.

Anyway.

I don’t love the fact that it’s a very limited text editor. I’d like syntax highlighting etc. But my fingers are absolutely hardcoded to it, and I am not in the least interested in something that makes me switch away from those (much less start using a mouse to move around etc).

Which is just a very long way to say: “Does anybody know of some slightly more modern GUI editor that actually has good support for really changing keybindings”.

And I mean really configurable. As in “I can make ESC-J auto-justify text, and ESC-Z be ‘exit-and-save, and ^X^C will exit without saving”. Not some half-way state where “sure, you can make ^X exit, but no, you can’t make ^X or ESC act as Alt / Meta keys for other keys?

And yes, I know one answer is “teach your fingers new ways”. But my micro-emacs works just fine, and so it really isn’t worth it to me.

And please - don’t even bother replying with “Xyz is a great editor” unless you know and can show exactly how to rebind a key sequence like that ^X^C. I don’t use nearly all the uemacs keybindings, but I use an odd set of them.

I’d rather maintain just a keybinding file than a whole scrappy editor.

Edit: clearly I should have specified that I’m not interested in yet another “runs in a terminal” editor, or some even older editor (ie “real” emacs, or vim) that just has had more lipstick applied over the years.

@kernellogger side note: one of my old rants against case-insensitivity was on good old Google+. Now you can’t see it any more, because G+ went away.

But the gist of it then was (and still is) “Don’t do it. Please”.

@ariadne Volvo XC40 Recharge.

In my defense: not only is this the first car I’ve ever had with lug nut keys, it’s my first car with a frunk, and I was searching for the lug nut key in the trunk - where both the jack and the lug wrench were.

Sometimes you have one of those days that just shows how incompetent you are…

We have a brand new family car (replacing one that was twenty years old - just to clarify that this is not something very common in our family). The wife is taking it up the mountain for some late spring skiing, so even though the season is pretty much over, it wants proper traction tires.

No problem. I’ve done this before, even if it’s been a few years. Order tires from Costco (they aren’t in stock, since what idiot would install traction tires in March?), and have them install them.

They call back half an hour after I’ve dropped the car off, because the new car has locking lug nuts. I’ve never heard of such a thing, didn’t know my car had them, and have absolutely no idea what a lug nut key is, much less where it would be.

So I go back to the tire center, google what said “key” is even supposed to look like, and try to find it, eventually just give up and say “let’s reschedule”.

In their defense, the tire techs keep a straight face, and don’t laugh in my face for never even having realized that my car has such things.

As I drive away, I light goes on. I have a manual. It tells me exactly where said lug nut key is (It’s under the carpet in the frunk, in case anybody wonders).

I drive back, feeling really stupid. But at least the car is ready for skiing now.

Moral of the day: RTFM.

@larsmb I may be biased by where I am, but it does seem like the problem has never primarily been the resources or public policy or access, but individuals who “did their own research”.

I think it was harder finding ivermectin than vaccines at times.

So I’d worry more about plain old stupidity than the #WHO guidelines.

@larsmb To be fair, isn’t that the job of something like #WHO?

A health organization really shouldn’t look at an individual, but at a societal, level. You as an individual then have to make your own choices, but from a policy standpoint there has to be some kind of cost effectiveness bias and taking averages into account.

No policy can ever be perfect, and striving for perfection is pointless and actively detrimental. So you should always look for “this is the best we can reasonably do in the big picture”, and ask yourself whether that shouldn’t take cost and effort into account?

@monsieuricon I hope you quote the result.

tr -d 'A-Za-z0-9' < /usr/share/dict/words | sort | uniq -c

isn’t empty.

Also, I find one 45-character entry there, so three of them will end up with a line that is much longer than the “SHOULD not be more than 78 characters” line length.

Not that anybody should care about that crazy legacy limit, but still..

@axboe you should get rid of the two preceding lines as welll (the iov_base/iov_len initialization). They are now wrong, and the iov_iter_ubuf() will overwrite them anyway. The compiler will presumably not generate code for them as it notices, but still..

@axboe shouldn’t we do that for import_single_range() and for import_iovec() too, and turn those into ITER_UBUF rather than ITER_IOVEC?

Maybe I’m missing something.

@rook it’s easy and probably largely pointless to criticize the consciousness of AI models. You’re inevitably just making stuff up, since you control the very definition of what “consciousness” is to you.

That’s kind of my point. I suspect that ChatGPT could write a decent paper on this very thing.

The much more interesting thing is to see what those models tell us about ourselves, using hard data from AI models. But I suspect there’s a lot of people who are very invested in discussions about qualia and experiences who really don’t want to go there.

@missingno you probably say that jokingly, but I think that’s actually the real underlying truth.

It’s obviously true of ChatGPT.

But I really do think the much more interesting truth is that it’s probably true of us too.

@Inginsub that’s not what I claim. I claim that the people talking about “understanding” do not themselves have the very understanding that they are taking about.

They are literally just doing the same thing they talk about ChatGPT doing: putting likely words into sentences that sound good.

Smarter people than me and you have gone down crazy rabbit holes in this area for centuries.

Please also tell me all about “the quantum mind” or how the machine does not have a “soul”.

Pet peeve of the day: all the people talking about how ChatGPT is not “conscious” and how it does not “understand” what it is saying, but just putting likely-sounding words together into likely-sounding sentences.

Extra bonus points for using an example of a math problem as a way to show how these AI chat-bots talk about things they don’t really understand.

The irony. The lack of self-awareness. It burns.