Whoa. I feel like I've just arrived. My blog post on my #emacs learning in public adventures (https://bob-irving.com/117-2/) was reposted by @sachac ! I've been following her weekly emacs updates and found myself there. Like I said, whoa!
It's nice to be part of a pretty technical community that supports stumbling bumbling n00bs like me.
So I was a bit off my org-roam habits and decided to get back on track. Since my daily driver is macOS, I am using Railwaycat's emacs-mac formulae on Homebrew. And boom! #emacs doesn't launch even before upgrading due to some wierd gcc issue.
Tried to upgrade... can't compile because of libgccjit issue (necessary for native compilation feature which makes elisp work faster). Turns out there are some breaking changes from GCC upstream and had to browse published issue to apply some workarounds.
In the process I've discovered the --HEAD option for brew which apparently allows to get the most recent-ish branch for a given formulae. So now I have Emacs 29.3 over default 29.1 for this contraption.
PS. As I like the Emacs help system which can browse its own source code to describe a function, it wasn't readily available with brew. Had to copy the code from brew cache to some static location and Emacs just asked to point for the sources there, nice!
Productivity increases with the level of customization you are making in the tools you are using most often.
The downside is that the more used to these customizations you get, the more lost you'll feel when
using a system that is not configured as yours.
Simple example: create a new binding in #Vim or #Emacs. This is not only very common but
also very encouraged. After getting used to that, connect to a remote server.
@publicvoit my understanding is it's the same camera as the 7a. But to be fair, I think these days a modern camera phone is going to be pretty similar.
If I say “dogs exist” but someone else believes that all dogs I see are “wolves” and not “dogs” then as far as they are concerned I am wrong.
I could give them a book showing the differences in dog and wolf anatomy but that assumes they will accept the differences are big enough to agree that they are two different animals which they won’t unless it fits their belief of evidence or they face social pressure to accept my belief as the truth.
@indiasoale there is no ability to observe anything objectively. What you "see" are electrical pulses converted by the brain based on what the eyes have detected. The eyes, due to evolution, are only capable of detecting certain things in certain ways.
You could also play here with the different levels of subjectivity. At the ultimate level, everything is the same.
It's a very difficult thing that I think about a lot.
Unfortunately I will have to disagree strongly that what you see is based on social construction. This is the multiple levels that I alluded to earlier. On one level, you have an experience of seeing a thing. If you choose not to make it into a "thing", then you will not add any conceptual layer to it. There is no "chair" or "stool" at all. "Chair" and "stool" are concepts, they are additions/overlays to experience.
@indiasoale well said, but the concepts exist nowhere in physical reality. There is "what is", and then whatever overlay gets applied.
"Chair" is useful, it conveys a shared idea. A thing that looks like this and has this form, I say "chair" to quickly share information. But still there is no chair beyond the concept.
"If concepts did not exist in physical reality as water exists in physical reality then the physical form of a wooden chair would be no different to any other wood. "
Exactly. A chair is both "chair" and not-chair. Without the concept of chair, you could still sit on the thing we call a chair. Chair is made up of not-chair. Wood, screws, or perhaps glue even. You could even call the thing we call as "chair" a flumble, and nothing would change at all.
@indiasoale I don't think I would conflate concepts with action. If you call a chair wood for a fire, nothing happens without action. A chair is both a chair and wood for a fire, or a door stop, or any other myriad things because concepts don't have any impact on the object itself. Concepts only exist in the mind and have no impact on the current structure of the underlying not-chair that composes "chair". No matter the concept, the object is just however it is.
I feel so awkward explaining Mastodon and the Fediverse to people who have no prior knowledge of either.
I've used phrases like: "imagine if you could run your own Facebook (ew) for your friends and family or join an existing community of like-minded people".
I've explained all of these concepts time and time again, to people from various backgrounds, those in software engineering for example find the concepts of federation and decentralisation really interesting. Some find these concepts hard to grasp, while others find the extra step of finding the right community cumbersome.
I understand that "X" social media platform is where people are, but, in the Fediverse, where people are can be any one of Y, Z, or whatever; all of us can communicate under different jurisidictions.
I'd really like to know the examples you've used to introduce the Fediverse to your peers and friends.