jibal

7 ms·

31.
by jibal 20d ago
> Nobody hallucinates or "sees" the object Prove it. > If you quiz someone long enough you can get them to acknowledge they don't see anything "in their head" whatever that means. This is simply false, as nume
32.
by jibal 20d ago
> I see things with my eyes, experience has taught me that when I cover my eyes I cannot see things, when I close my eyes I cannot see things. That's your experience. Other people have different experiences. > That is what seei
33.
by jibal 21d ago
Just say "oh, I see".
34.
by jibal 22d ago
There obviously are, e.g., mamma. What was the point in asking this (irrelevant) question?
35.
by jibal 22d ago
I think you're quite confused. Emacs always avoided a huge startup hit by loading elisp code into temacs (bare bones emacs that only exists when building it) and then dumping it with unexec to produce the emacs that is distributed. A d
36.
by jibal 22d ago
That was 10 years ago.
37.
by jibal 22d ago
It's a complete violation of good sense to invoke common sense here. You talk about "particles" but that's not what the world is made of. Also, particle/wave duality. Also, any number of bosons can occupy the same
38.
by jibal 22d ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. > Don't be curmudgeonly. Thoughtful criticism is fine, but please d
39.
by jibal 23d ago
whoosh
40.
by jibal 23d ago
> There is mostly no "log" that "logging in" writes to. Um, there is, actually. On the etymological front, "log" was originally an actual wooden log, dragged behind a ship. It then became the book in which m
41.
by jibal 24d ago
So? spicyjpeg is pointing out what is true, not just regurgitating TFA.
42.
by jibal 24d ago
And sure enough it was: https://simonwillison.net/2026/Aug/18/mojo-is-now-open-sourc...
43.
by jibal 24d ago
Hey, that was a great comment about homoiconicity and {code} in C. It's nuts that it got killed, apparently because you said you used an LLM. HN (among others) is in the grip of hysteria on the issue.
44.
by jibal 24d ago
The article is about a controversy involving allegations. There is plenty of evidence presented that the controversy and the allegations exist. (And if you dig into the links, there is plenty of evidence that the allegations are not without
45.
by jibal 24d ago
As it says in the first line of the WP article: "Federal Security Service (FSB)"
46.
by jibal 24d ago
Nonsensical non sequitur ad hominem. (FWIW I've been a software developer for 60 years and have dealt with many of them.) I won't respond further.
47.
by jibal 24d ago
> I think in this case it is probably justified What is "it"? The GP clearly doesn't understand that code and utterly misconstrues its nature and the nature of the Racket/Scheme/LISP language. If someone has zero
48.
by jibal 24d ago
> What does 'within the language' mean? It's obvious, and the rest of the comment confirms that: > Would a variant of C that came with an interpreter in the standard library (but no other changes) count as homoiconic? I
49.
by jibal 25d ago
I quite intentionally said "within the language" to preempt nonsense like "Of course, you can. C is perfectly capable of writing C interpreters and compilers."
50.
by jibal 25d ago
This is stupid --- way too long and wordy. Make your test worth taking. And even then it's theoretically impossible to detect the watermark so what even is the point? If it's to check whether the watermarking actually has that pro
51.
by jibal 25d ago
Does i + 1 look the same as "i + 1"? The first is an expression, the second is a string. In LISP, it's similarly (+ i 1) vs '(+ i 1). These sorts of shallow complaints can be made of any feature than one is not familiar
52.
by jibal 25d ago
You can't run that code within the language so no, obviously not. And even if you could, strings + eval alone is not homoiconicity--programs are not manipulated by the compiler as unstructured text strings.
53.
by jibal 25d ago
syntax-rules refers specifically to Racket macros. Since macros are a very important part of Racket, complaining that a friendly introduction mentions them is [insert non-friendly characterization].
54.
by jibal 25d ago
It's not a program, it is (obviously) a totally unrealistic hodgepodge expression for a list of constant values that simply demonstrates the literal syntax for a variety of types of values (real numbers, dotted pairs, rational numbers,
55.
by jibal 26d ago
"for all we know [utterly implausible nonsense]" is intellectually dishonest trash, not a legitimate argument.
56.
by jibal 28d ago
What "promises"? There were no promises, just some optimistic informal tweets. Sheesh.
57.
by jibal 28d ago
TFA shows that they are working on releasing it. If you actually want an answer to your question, ask Jarred ... you won't get it here.
58.
by jibal 29d ago
Five comments here write "parenthesis" where they mean "parentheses" ... weird.
59.
by jibal 29d ago
The OP says > Unused code is one issue. A project called Buz[1] found over 11,000 lines of dead code from the Rust port. [1]: https://github.com/jazzzooo/buz When in fact Buz is a fork of the pre-Rust Zig version of
60.
by jibal 29d ago
The dead code was removed from the pre-Rust Zig version. The OP has no credibility. P.S. Nor does new user parenting my comments.

More ›