namark @namark@qoto.org
Joined Jan 2020
re: hot take
@amiloradovsky@functional.cafe
Sure, call it
SUI: "sentence-based user interface",
or
LUI: "language-based user interface".
re: hot take
@amiloradovsky@functional.cafe
I have to resort to explore the deeper meanings, because you turn a "why?" question into a "why not?" question. It is not what I have against spaces in names, it is what you have for spaces in names. Not allowing spaces is the lowest common denominators. To me your argument sounds like advocating for using spaces to separate syllables in natural languages.
re: hot take
@amiloradovsky@functional.cafe
Note: The space as a separator is not unique to shells, but to text interfaces in general (unless shell means text interface in general, hmmm). It is not arbitrary, but most natural, as they are modeled after natural language sentences. A name in a natural language is usually a word. A full name is a combination of words, a multi part id, not one word. The point of the parts is to allow using only one part/word in certain context.
re: hot take
@amiloradovsky@functional.cafe
Well, that's a bit out of context, but I can argue, of course, what is time.
I wouldn't lay any claims on description fields of your table(just like I wouldn't on contents of files in general), but if you have a filed/column for a name, I believe the contents of that fields would be as short as possible while remaining identifiable. If your fields/columns themselves would have names they would adhere to the same pattern, otherwise(not having names) they will be identified by decimal numbers, not because those are more natural than unary, but because they are shorter, which makes them more identifiable.
For example when building a table for a family, you might use first names instead of full names for convenience. Even building a table for a larger community, you might have first and last names as separate fields/columns, so that occasionally when narrowing the scope to a smaller group/family, you can discard the last name column. Surely you can nitpick on this, on the grounds that we are not a hive-mind(or that surnames have spaces, which is, like, put me in a canon and blast me out of context kind of move), but it is just an example of a coherent system, not a statement on a natural phenomenon.
To bring it back into original context, if you can accept shortness of names, the argument "I need space for my short names, more than others need space for long sentences they write in text interfaces" doesn't sound very appealing. Keeping in mind that nothing is stopping the text interface from accepting two names(first and last, or more) as a single identifier in general, but when it comes to file names (in common file systems) the directory structure is used for that, which is not exactly an n-part id, but that's a different discussion. (and the separator is not space, and it is forbidden in file names... I wonder why... can't have GNU/Linux as a file... preposterous!).
re: hot take
@amiloradovsky@functional.cafe
To clarify, I didn't mean the essence of names is shortness only. I assumed they are identifiers with all strings attached, and meant that what sets them apart is that they are supposed to be short.
I guess filenames being used as short descriptions is common, so maybe my pedantry regarding what names are is moot, but I myself rarely use more than a couple of words.
Regarding where space should be utilized, I don't know where it should be, in perfect world, but it is utilized in text interfaces, or their syntax if you will, in a natural way. I know there are solutions for spaces in names, like quoting and escaping, but I would call that more of a hack than using underscores in filenames. And breaking some systems(which, IMHO understandably, might not want to bother with that nonsense) is a reason enough to avoid something, especially when the counterargument appears to be: I want to name my file "the reason we can't have nice things . portable network graphics" and, while I'm at it, change my name to "the one who prefers long descriptive names" to make sure that both the file and I are never mentioned again.
re: hot take
@amiloradovsky@functional.cafe
I'm not quoting anyone, that was a hypothetical exaggerated argument against short names, I used quotes, so that it doesn't break the parsing of the sentence. What you seem to define as a name, sounds to me more like a description. If that's your definition - can't really argue, otherwise you have done the job for me. Your argument for space as a natural separator is valid for sentences(natural language or otherwise), but not necessarily for names. A name should identify indeed, and if we are talking about human interface(or as N goes to infinity any conceivable system), longer the names are, harder they are to identify. Names fundamentally are not supposed to encode any information, though it is useful to give things meaningful names in some contexts, mostly in a very local narrow scope.
My point with ascii was that if you are abandoning text interface, might as well question the rest of the fundamentals, you wouldn't need any special characters anymore, not even the null terminator. The question "what is space" in that context is what led me to ascii.
Finally yes, the argument is compatibility with text interface, for which as you have said(way better than I could, I have to admit), space is a natural separator.
re: hot take
@amiloradovsky@functional.cafe
It doesn't have to be underscore Miloradovsky,Andrew and the whole point of names is to be short. Allowing a space is just as arbitrary as disallowing it, so your argument then simply is "they allowed it", which is fair enough, got to adhere to standards... or set them.
Regarding the further musings, at that stage you've got to ask yourself what is space, and why even ascii. Which is essentially asking "why be compatible?", and the answer is "because it is practical", and something like "I want my entire family history to be my name" is not a strong argument against it.
hot take
@tuxcrafting unnecessarily hostile... proper argument would be "there is a good reason to use spaces, and that is ..."
If that was all you said, it would have been a simple misunderstanding, instead you went on a glorious rant exposing the fallacies that plague you, which I could not help but point out. Call it an obsession. Not very healthy I admit.
Let me paint you a full picture.
@freemo stated that the conclusions drawn are not scientific, which is apparent just based on the wording, which is so vague it can't be science. You having no argument to that, making use of our good friend @realcaseyrollins (who is so far innocent according to my logic radar) derailing the conversation from science to authority, proceeded with the rhetoric of "one should not blindly trust authority" while demonstrating no ability to do so yourself or any understanding of the problem of authority, which you assumed @freemo was having, through an apparent misunderstanding(misinterpretation), that is mostly likely caused by the same lack of realization of your own hypocrisy.
Here is the flow without all the mumbo-jumbo:
freemo: this proves nothing
casey: but authorityyyyy
freemo: well, your choice, but authority is not science
obi: freemo blindly trusts authority, you should not blindly trust authority, cause authority is wrong sometimes (extrapolation: instead you should blindly trust authority that has not lost its authority so far, according to me).
You see where it all went embarrassingly wrong?
My argument is that your understanding of what you are saying is incorrect, and that you are saying the complete opposite of what you think you are saying, however strange that might seem.
Nobody should be your hero, but you shouldn't solve that problem by jumping from one hero to another based on who looks more heroic at any given moment. You should consider their scientific works and statements as scientific works and statements, and their layperson remarks as layperson remarks. They don't make themselves authority figures, you make them authority figures by the mindset of "they must be perfect god, and everything they say must be correct, and if anything they said is incorrect, they are the devil then, and must not be trusted in anything, logic be damned and forever forgotten".
More so, as you can't be an expert in everything, when you are left with no choice but to trust an authority, you should accept that reality, make your choice and remains a mostly silent sceptic, and not go around asserting knowledge that you don't have and trying to convince others that your choice is THE choice, like a fanatic.
The implication in "no scientist said that" was not that "no authority figure said that", but that "the wording is vague and unscientific". Not realizing this, you jump to criticize basing one's conclusion on authority of scientist, bringing as an example your own behavior of drawing conclusion based on non scientifically worded statements of you heroes(authorities), who later are discredited in your eyes (in their entirety as a person and a scientist, "cancelled") by other non scientifically worded statements of NASA(stronger authority I guess), or their non scientific opinion on unrelated subject(elections), without ever yourself studying the field with full rigor and drawing your own conclusions based on specific scientific statements.
TLDR: "you should wholeheartedly trust an authority figure in absolutely everything, up until the point their layperson remarks(which should be gospel to you) are refuted by a greater authority (or they just say something you don't like), and under no circumstances should you ever even consider doing science yourself, kids"
I wasn't suggesting to build a file manager from scratch with native UI instead of Web UI, I was suggesting to not build a new file manager at all and reuse an existing one. Instead of standardizing a whole browser within which you can create a file manager, standardize some sort of a network filesystem, that can cover a whole slue of use cases people make custom(often sub-par) UI for. Similar arguments can be made for the other examples.
"It looks better" is not really an argument. Looks are subjective and therefore should be customizable by the user, and not imposed on them by you. Not saying that native apps are perfect in that regard, but they always had that kind of a dimension/concern/feature in mind, while web went completely opposite trying to make everyting exactly the same everywhere, entirely against its own initial design.
In my opinion, it succeeded(in as much that it succeeded) not because it was strictly superior, but because the culture was ever so slightly better. The copyright was not being abused in the traditional sense, apps were free, without DRM(initially), which attracted users. Of course instead of realizing this and leaning more towards free software values, and making things even better, and maybe going back to native with the same approach, most were just following fads and their greed, so ended up in the same boat of abuse of users, monopolization of markets, and unhealthy rivalry between developers.
Great? You sure about that?
It's an artefact of a very flawed culture, and is extremely suboptimal in pretty much every sense. Performance aside, how can you not be fed up with every app constantly reimplementing what has been done and done better years if not decades ago. Why are we making yet another file manager, instead of interfacing with existing ones? Yet another conversation tree that has no idea how to be a tree, yet another media player that has like 2 controls, yet another playlist interface that is backwards, yet another pagination interface that can't jump to a page, yet another moody search/filtering interface, yet another text editor that can't copy/paste text and so on?
Because we don't really like creating or adhering to any standards, we don't like empowering users, we like controlling/exploiting them. We know what they need, and better than anyone before us. And anyway, we can't interface with existing programs cause they are our rivals. This is the culture now, and even those who dislike it are forced to adhere to it to a degree, forced to exist in that ecosystem, acquire skills and understanding through that lense.
To put it in perspective, imagine if everyone abandoned all the current browser features and started reimplementing them entirely in html canvas, and used brainfuck as scripting language in this new framework. That's what the "web platform" did.
I tried to come up with a ridiculous impossible example here, but, aside from brainfuck, I guess some people actually do this ._.
wait a minute... I do this o_o
my excuse is I make it native and just deploy to web as "most irrelevant secondary platform, yes".
@shebang hmmm... my assumptions are based on the video (I did not investigate the person any further) and the purpose of the comments is to point out logical fallacies. Too assertive? Too verbose? You can address just one paragraph if you will, they are not strictly interconnected or ordered.
Or is it that I did not express a stance on the presented dichotomy and that is all that matters?
*Criticises measures that are meant to minimize damage, for not forever and completely preventing it*
*Accuses the opposing side of abusing critical situations to push their agenda, and yet does exactly the same thing*
*Indoctrinated to such a degree, that appears to exist under a delusion that everyone is in agreement with their agenda, except the "evil government", and presents civil war as "government vs people" war and not "one government vs other government" war that it is*
*Does not realize that the criminal will always have the advantage of premeditation, and therefore crime always can and will precede the punishment, and in specific cases where the criminal is content with the punishment(desperate), the crime will be more severe than the punishment*
*Appears to be completely unaware of main load baring pillars of civilization, that are specialization and trust, how fragile they are, and that one must sometimes sacrifice their individual agenda(rights) to prevent collapse, and that law must constantly evolve to outline/document how and why one must to it in the given climate, and not be a perfect bible once and for all*
@sir what's the point of your blanket condemnation? To alienate those who are not aware of your reasoning, and further strengthen the conviction of those who are against it? I'm sorry to disappoint, but tomorrow is not the the judgment day and you are not god. Nobody cares who you would like to hold accountable for what. The way I see it your cause is to convince, and this kind of rhetoric is nothing but detrimental for it.
A license that just guarantees(as you say) the freedoms is not enough. This was understood by people who wrote even GPL 1, but not by anyone ever since apparently. It's not about living in piece with other more permissive licenses or proprietary software, it's about eradicating proprietary software. If your free software project stands in the way, then it needs to move. Why do you think apple and nvidia have proprietary toolchains now, on par with gcc? Cause llvm. Totally free software, totally cool by itself, but also totally enabling proprietary software. That is not ok for free software movement. GPL is not the a bible to live by, it's a very specific tool designed to fight proprietary software, and as such it will not be stopped by one simple level of indirection. If there is need, it will be used against other free software licenses. If it were up to people who wrote GPL software copyright and licenses, free software or not, wouldn't exist at all.
Look at the hellscape that is software industry today, look at hardware and other industries following suit, and tell me some rando's personal sense of ownership of their project (free software or not) is more important than software freedom.
There can be many specific examples where blindly applying/enforcing GPL might not a very good idea, but that doesn't mean that CDDL or MPL, or dual licensing is better in general (or even in particular, copared to LGPL).
