2024-05-11 20:50:03
- reply
by npub1jlr…ynqn
I'm halfway through, and there are definitely things I disagree with (particularly the idea that you can lose your salvation because of something material that was imposed upon you), but it's the most compelling explanation of the covid/5g/etc connection I've heard so far.
It's certainly introduced some new ideas to me — for example, the idea that transhumanism may mean importing a foreign mind into our physical bodies, rather than transporting our human minds into artificial bodies. Lots of things to think about here, I appreciate your turning me on to it.
2024-05-10 03:40:48
- reply
by npub1jlr…ynqn
Yeah, no shade to you at all. I use the term ethics in such a broad way (c.f. my conversation with Vitor) that it's really not possible to have an ethic beyond reproach.
For this one, last word has the same problem block does. You can't make someone else stop talking, you can only stop listening. The ethical argument is that if you're the kind of person who forces the other person to stop talking rather than removing yourself from the conversation, you're relying on clients to exercise force on your behalf. Sometimes that's ok, Rabble has convinced me that blocks and deletes are worth supporting to make online spaces easier for women (for example) to be in. So it's not a hard and fast opinion, I just would feel like a jerk if I ever used last word, and would probably be percieved as such.
2024-05-09 21:16:59
- reply
by npub1jlr…ynqn
Yeah, I think this describes how we differ. It accounts for why I'm a Christian and you're an atheist (or agnostic? I can't remember).
The problem with not invoking ethics (or, really, ontology to bring it even farther back) is you can't ever find a complete answer to any question. With no fixed point of reference, there is no truth. In practice, we don't need to invoke ontology to have a conversation, because we have a functional shared worldview. The irony is that in order for atheists to argue at all they have to adopt a Christian ontology (or at least an ontology that accounts for transcendent reality). Without base reality, all propositions are relative, in infinite regress.
2024-05-09 19:37:59
- reply
by npub1jlr…ynqn
Yeah, I agree, which is why I always kind of drag my feet in these discussions when people talk about going past follows for WoT. I think it's a good idea, but could fail if not properly "gamified" I guess you could say.
One approach that could help is to use non-replaceable events (since an easy assumption to make about those is that they're always up to date), but individual attestations, which could be weighted less heavily over time.
2024-05-08 20:02:26
by npub1jlr…ynqn
Has anyone figured out a good AI-based workflow for editing code? I don't want copilot, I don't want to copy everything into a chat box every time I want to ask a question. I want to give the LLM access to my local file system's copy of my repository, and say things like:
> Create a component called src/app/shared/FeedList.svelte which has a "create feed" button similar to the one on the groups list page, and a list of user feeds. Each list item should be in a card, with an "edit" link on the right that links to a form for editing the custom feed.
The agent would then update my file system in place, and I could review the changes via git, manually edit, or provide a follow-up prompt. When I'm happy with the results, I can commit the changes, rinse, and repeat.
That prompt is obviously very complex, particularly the inference of what a "button similar to the one on the groups list page" might be. But a dumber prompt would still be a 10x improvement over typing everything out by hand.
2024-05-04 20:24:57
by npub1jlr…ynqn
This episode of The Symbolic World is fantastic. In it, they make the case that "no matter who you are, you will celebrate pentecost" because it is a spiritual reality. The question is, will you celebrate by embracing the wind-like work of the spirit (in all its ordered chaos), or will you "reap the wind" by attempting to impose your own order onto the spirit? Our world is building a new Babel, but a storm is coming that will bring that project to utter confusion.
A question I often ask myself is: which side am I on? Is nostr a tower of babel, a creation of human technology meant to impose order, or does it "embrace the chaos" in a faithful way? I strongly think the latter, but we will see.
https://thesymbolicworld.com/content/universal-history-the-end-of-babel-with-richard-rohlin
2024-05-03 22:05:28
- reply
by npub1jlr…ynqn
Co-sign all of that. A big part of articulating a vision for the future I think involves understanding what was great about the past. I love Wendell Berry for this, but when I mention him in this context, people generally think I'm advocating a regression, not an advance. But I don't think Berry is merely nostalgic. I think he had a vision for life that was mostly unrealized, even in the past. The nostalgia we have for the past is in many ways the same as our hope for the future, because the past we remember never actually existed. But it could exist (in some form completely different from what we expect) in the future.