Notices by @kmicu@mastodon.social (kmicu@mastodon.social), page 16

@deshipu @rysiek please folks, stop mixing math with physics. Classical probability theory is based on rigorous math and _axioms_. In multiverse _hypotheses_ we do not have access to alternatives; they do not make our universe deterministic.

In such discussions we should stick to equations, not _interpretations_, b/c otherwise it’s very easy to reach bonkers conclusions.

@unfa thank you!

@unfa it would be interesting to watch how do you explore new plugins and research their capabilities. How do you translate ZynAddSubFX knowledge/tricks to a new synth. Do you read manuals like http://linuxsynths.com/ObxdPatchesDemos/OBXD-Manual-English.pdf or can you figure it out on your own?

@szbalint like literally or was that a hot take?

@lthms @otini lispy nature does not exclude an advance type systems. We could have a Lisp flavored Haskell or OCaml.

There is also http://shenlanguage.org/ with static type checking based on sequent calculus or gradually typed flavors like https://docs.racket-lang.org/ts-guide/

_Personally_ I prefer lack of syntax. Even trivial syntax elements like ‘$’ give unnecessary headaches to newcomers wanting to configure XMonad.

Lisp’s default lack of operator precedence also gives us less rules and less complexity.

@piecyk jest moc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgJ_qXDaGc0

Allan Taylor - A House by the River

@grainloom [Jokin’] Dammit Jim! Once again I am ‘no one’!

@lthms [Yoda’s voice] Yes, a dev's strength flows from the VCS. But beware of the darcs side. Haskell, darcsden, patch theory; the darcs side of the VCS are they. Easily they flow, quick to join you in a development. If once you start down the darcs path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will, as it did Obi-Kmett's apprentice.

@steelman @fsf @fsfe “Software is the operational part of a device that can be copied and changed in a computer; hardware is the operational part that can't be. This is the right way to make the distinction because it relates to the practical consequences. […] firmware that is delivered inside the device and can't be changed is software by nature, but we can treat it as if it were a circuit.” ― https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-hardware-designs.en.html

That specific piece of code on PROM is hardware and no longer a software.

@hund A lot of parts and there is so many of them that even starting with “I don’t expect you to comment necessarily on Richard Stallman being a twat… *giggling*” at 25 minute would take too much time which they do not deserve.

@hund the task is very difficult, this why so many (major) distros are still GNU based. For a _long_ time that was our only option. All those GNU libc/gcc/coreutils/binutils/etc alternatives are recent developments.

Listening to that podcast was very painful: I’ve seen examples of lack of diversity, FUD, ignorance, entitlement. There are biases and logical fallacies in their arguments.

Some are valid if you ignore the history, but delivery is off-putting.

@hund @Skoll3 if they do not know what is GNU project and why RMS insists on GNU+Linux naming convention then I am glad RMS refused.

Try to build your own operating system and you will quickly know why GNU+Linux makes sense, but systemd|etc+Linux not.