Mozilla has been problematic for a while now, both with personnel having some... strong political ideas, their governance, executive pay, product direction....
Ugh, I don't want to go back to a chromium based browser but I don't know how what other options I have at this point, short of dropping down to links/lynx/elinks ..
firefox could have some of the wackiest politics in the world but that fact remains that Google/Chrome is one of the key linchpins for the global corporate surveillance capitalism panopticon that we have today.
I still feel like it's an easy recommendation compared to the rest of the browser market.
I honestly can't tell it the was meant sarcastically.
Who defines what the "right" political idea is? And do you really want to live in a society limited only to ideas that are deemed as the "right" ones by whoever has that power?
What do you mean? Who defines the "right" political ideas in a democracy?
My understanding is that a democracy would exist to allow the majority of a society to define what they want, and that in the US we have a democratic republic because our founders still didn't trust the public enough to leave decisions entirely to a majority vote of the public.
So fun to spring for the paid duolingo only to realize you can only download the next lesson up, not like the entire course.
The lessons are like 5m long wtf am I supposed to do with that? I just want to spend my idle time on the plane or camping disconnected from distractions so I can learn, but app developers have made that effectively impossible
And this is why I don't pay for, or even use duolingo even though I'm actively learning a language
I've heard a theory where the inner monolog was emergent, and some of the first people to recognize thr 'voice in their heads' attributed it to god/angels/etc
There's conspiratorial lying and lying from ignorance, one is much less credulous.
To be fair, math is a language in itself... with many dialects come to tcreditors.
At the end of the day though, thought requires communication, even if internal. Even physics is modelled as some sort of 'message passing' when we try to unravel what causality really is. Similar to how a processor has cycles, I think/know similar (but unsynced) happens as part of what we call 'thinking'.
FWIW I completely agree in python, Java, typescript, and golang. I've seen people just parrot dogma about DRY and SOLID principals where their DRY'd code is completely not open to extension etc
Premature dry'ing is the same as premature engineering. And lest someone go 'oh so YAGNI is all you need'... no, sometimes you are going to need it and it's better to at least make your code easily moldable to 'it' now instead of later. Future potential needs can absolutely drive design decisions
My whole point is that dogma is dumb. If we had steadfast easy rules that applied in literally every situation, we could just hand off our work to some mechanical turks and the role of software engineer would be redundant. Today, that's not the case, and it's literally our job to balance our wisdom and experience against the current situation. And yes, we will absolutely get it wrong from time to time, just hopefully a lower percentage of occasions as we gain experience.
The only dogma I live by for code is 'boring is usually better', and the only reason I stick by that is because it implicitly calls out that it's not a real dogma in that it doesn't apply in all cases.
(Okay, I definitely follow more principals than that, but don't want to distract from the topic athand)
I think comparing us to Neanderthals didn't do it justice. Imo it's more like going from single cellular organelle-less life to a full blown human.
That said, today the "machine brains" we're building are closer to the single cell side of the scale than the human side.
I like this analogy better because cells never went away -- they just self organized into something greater than their whole, and I'd imagine the same will be (is?) True with 'thinking machines' as well
reply