Inkscape is the only software that I see people get so defensive about when criticised. I even had the lead dev appear in my mentions and try and start fighting me on twitter when I complained on my own timeline about the performance on macOS. Weird culture

Would you like to name names? I don't think we have a lead dev currently.

No, I don’t want to name and shame. It was a few years ago

I think I know who you're talking about then :) Yes, some years has passed and they are no longer active (and we have a leadership committee instead of lead devs now).

> Nobody can ever know an ultimate why, for obvious and well established philosophical reasons

Yes we can, you are just presupposing that philosophy is ultimately ineffective. For example Hegel gave a presuppositionless development of all metaphysics among other things. It’s not some kind of philosophical consensus that ultimate justification is impossible

Fractal Patterns in Reasoning – David Atkinson and Jeanne Peijnenburg

Abstract This paper is the third and final one in a sequence of three. All three papers emphasize that a proposition can be justified by an infinite regress, on condition that epistemic justification is interpreted probabilistically. The first two papers showed this for one-dimensional chains and for one-dimensional loops of propositions, each proposition being justified probabilistically by its precursor. In the present paper we consider the more complicated case of two-dimensional nets, where each ‘child’ proposition is probabilistically justified by two ‘parent’ propositions. Surprisingly, it turns out that probabilistic justification in two dimensions takes on the form of Mandelbrot’s iteration. Like so many patterns in nature, probabilistic reasoning might in the end be fractal in character.

https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/8961/1/Fractal_Patterns_of_...

Philosophy can be perfectly effective as a tool of thought while still being unable to resolve self evidently unsolvable “ultimate questions”

Only by embracing solipsism, in which case why are you here debating things, since your entire truth is derivable from your existence alone with no other observations or interactions required?

Solipsism is wrong.

Interesting word soup. Ultimately, no, you cannot build a valid representation of the universe from nothing and you need observation and validation. You can presupposition whatever you want when you are talking about unproveable models, but it says more about you than the universe. Until we have a reason to think that there is a "why", discussing what it is is completely unnecessary and futile because 1) it does not change anything about our understanding or the predictions we can make, and 2) it is not something we can observe, measure or prove.

You don’t need any observations at all to build up a complete knowledge of the entire universe. Hegel showed this

Quantum physics from no observations? With your monkey brain? Yeah right.

Ah yes, that is a good answer to how you would derive quantum physics from rationality alone.

> But I wonder does this mean no AI was used at all? Even for say, code review?

Would that be surprising to you?

I’m just curious if you are so dependent on LLMs that the idea of not using them at all seems extreme to you

I see, good to be curious.

"No vibe coding" is an ambiguous claim. I was asking whether they meant no AI-generated implementation, no AI assistance whatsoever, or just "not primarily generated by prompts."

This makes it good for formal maths, but bad for philosophy, since it means it can’t encode the speculative movement

Which logic are you saying “can’t encode the speculative moment”?

I think the two logics can emulate one another? Or, at the very least, can describe what the other concludes. I know intuitionistic logic can have classical logic embedded in it through some sort of “put double negation on everything”. I think if you add some sort of modal operator to classical logic you could probably emulate intuitionistic logic in a similar way?

You don't even need to add a modal operator since modal logic itself can be embedded in classical logic via possible-world semantics. Of course the whole thing becomes a bit clunky - but that's the argument for starting with intuitionistic logic, where you wouldn't need to do that.

Any logic with LEM

For me the widespread fear over this is evidence that it’s different from syntax highlighting and stuff

> Just because you use AI doesn't mean your brain grows a black hole from which information can never return.

How do you know this? I’m not taking that risk

Every single second of our existence is taking risks about things we don't know. Of course he doesn't know this, he just assigns odds, as we do. Clearly you've assigned much higher odds.

Small stdlib, “implement it yourself” philosophy to even things like classes, diverging language versions and fragmentation (a lot of people don’t like any of the post 5.1 changes), bad tooling and editor support, dynamic duck typed language with no type hints

If it were about making a choice of which web framework to use on the server, obviously you wouldn't want to use Lua.

But if it is about using it as an embedded language. you want just enough language to get you started and be able to tweak controls. so that the embedded language itself doesn't take up unnecessary space, on its own.

It's a design choice to have a language as small as possible while still offering cool tools.

> If it were about making a choice of which web framework to use on the server, obviously you wouldn't want to use Lua.

Wait just a minute, there exist many web frameworks in lua, and programmers who enjoy lua might want to use them.

Cloudfare got pretty far with nginx+luajit before switching to rust, iirc

It's usually 6 months probation in Germany, not 3 months

If only the demoscene wasn’t so horrible culturally. It’s absolutely full of old sceners who have “earned” being dicks to people, and unfortunately many newbies who think that the way to be a real scener is to copy that behaviour. The constant flamewars on pouet.net are embarrassing. It is a good reminder that the internet did not used to be a nicer place though

> I'm incapable of doing basic operations in Finder or changing basic system settings, and random shit I didn't want to press pops up when I'm doing other things

Why?

Because the interface is very counter-intuitive. I don't have any other explanation. In Windows, KDE and Gnome I eventually "get there" with Gnome being my least favorite, while MacOS feels like vibecoded "my first UI".

Also, the Macbook keyboard is fucked. I constantly press buttons I didn't mean to. This literally never happened to me on any other device. And that's after years of using a Macbook.

I’m sure you can learn how to use it