A general offtopic comment, but something that confused me when I was looking at the github issues and docs for the spread operator.
I've noticed that `...` is frequently used to denote that there's some code that's omitted. However with the spread operator being added (and being `...` in other languages) and "we also felt like it might be an operator we might want to use in the future for other language features" it's a bit confusing at a glance whether that's new syntax or just a shorthand. And it makes searching difficult.
I'm not sure what to replace it with, possibly a comment would be clearer: `/* code here */` or at least `/* ... */`.
P.S. Collection expressions are an awesome new addition!
I think they're saying, somewhat facetiously, that they don't see dead people because they're aphantastic.
Phenomenologically, I'm not sure people typically "see" Jesus (Holy Spirit, et al) as much as perceive their presence or influence.
(I'd say the seeing dead people thing was a simple, bad-faith comment, but I believe it was Thomas Aquinas who made the "if you can't see it, it's because God didn't want you to see it" class of arguments regarding insensible phenomenon, so maybe it's actually a profound theological treatise they're working up.)
> I think they're saying, somewhat facetiously, that they don't see dead people because they're aphantastic.
Yes.
> Phenomenologically, I'm not sure people typically "see" Jesus (Holy Spirit, et al) as much as perceive their presence or influence.
Not quite. Jesus is unique in the Trinity as being the fleshly form of God that can indeed be associated with a clear image, that people (at least at some point in history) were expected to see and hear. Accordingly, I have heard some (but certainly not all) Christians speak of "seeing" Jesus in a phantastic sense (sometimes quite regularly - even constantly), and conversing with Him at length in this same sense. That is beyond my ability to reason about, so I do not.
> if you can't see it, it's because God didn't want you to see it
Indeed. Learning of my own aphantasia left me feeling profoundly broken, and it was in a sense the subject of that original "bad trip". It was unsettling to learn that "everyone else" has some seemingly magical power that I do not, and I had developed a fascination with finding a way to "fix myself".
I've since come to consider my nature to be God's intentional creation, so if there is some way I am different from others there is certainly a good reason for it – even though I might not know what that reason is.
>you get the opposite result: You make racists look bad.
In general I find myself agreeing with your comments in this thread but here I disagree.
It's tempting to find the overall societal benefit from those actions but I don't think there is one. Or it's much more subtle than this.
I also think that it's mainly done to create chaos and get a reaction and not so much to spread x opinions. But just randomly throwing shit into the world *mostly* makes everyone get used to the smell of shit while they hate you for it. But in my experience it *usually* leads to more shit and not less shit.
I guess the emphasis is on enough but I was pleasantly surprised to find some really good games on Apple Arcade: Slay the Spire, Dead Cells, Exit the Gungeon, Limbo, Stardew Valley, The Oregon Trail, Cityscapes. A lot more outside Apple Arcade but I prefer buying them on Steam so not much first hand experience with them.
> How unfair would that be to that someone? Having to bear the burden of being the sole reason for another to live?
That's one way to look at it. But it's one viewpoint of many.
Another one is that they may just enjoy being around you and communicating with you without necessarily feeling you or your life is their responsibility. And on your end you might recognize that you bring value to other people just by being you. You recognizing someone as your sole reason to live doesn't place a burden on them automatically.
I've deliberately tried to keep out emotion of this and to keep it transactional just to illustrate a different, simpler, viewpoint.
Also a more concrete example: I don't know you but from the couple of comments you've left I really enjoy the way you write. The cadence, word choice, it's concise and thoughtful. Brief and mostly one sided interaction but already made my life a bit better.
Obsidian is not open source so it's minified and hard to read. But I was able to find the relevant code and just set the delay to 0.
(I'm away from computer now, I'll see if I can find the code later.)
What also helped is that all Electron apps are just Chromium so you can run the dev tools and the debugger! I think the hotkey is F12, and/or Ctrl+Shift+J.
> GPT-3.5 gave me a right-ish answer of 24.848 liters, but it did not realize the last lap needs to be completed once the leader finishes. GPT-4 gave me 28-29 liters as the answer, recognizing that a partial lap needs to be added due to race rules, and that it's good to have 1-2 liters of safety buffer.
I don't believe that for a second. If that's the answer it gave it's cherry picked and lucky. There are many examples where GPT4 fails spectacularly at much simpler reasoning tasks.
I still think ChatGPT is amazing, but we shouldn't pretend it's something it isn't. I wouldn't trust GPT4 to tell me how much fuel I should put in my car. Would you?
This seems needlessly flippant and dismissive, especially when you could just crack open ChatGPT to verify, assuming you have plus or api access. I just did, and ChatGPT gave me a well-reasoned explanation that factored in the extra details about racing the other commenters noted.
>There are many examples where GPT4 fails spectacularly at much simpler reasoning tasks.
I pose it would be more productive conversation if you would share some of those examples, so we can all compare them to the rather impressive example the top comment shared.
>I wouldn't trust GPT4 to tell me how much fuel I should put in my car. Would you?
Not if I was trying to win a race, but I can see how this particular example is a useful way to gauge how an LLM handles a task that looks at first like a simple math problem but requires some deeper insight to answer correctly.
> Not if I was trying to win a race, but I can see how this particular example is a useful way to gauge how an LLM handles a task that looks at first like a simple math problem but requires some deeper insight to answer correctly.
It's not just testing reasoning, though, it's also testing fairly niche knowledge. I think a better test of pure reasoning would include all the rules and tips like "it's good to have some buffer" in the prompt.
At least debunk the example before you start talking about the shortcomings. Right now your comment feels really misplaced when it's a reply to an example where it actually shows a great deal of complex reasoning.
I've noticed that `...` is frequently used to denote that there's some code that's omitted. However with the spread operator being added (and being `...` in other languages) and "we also felt like it might be an operator we might want to use in the future for other language features" it's a bit confusing at a glance whether that's new syntax or just a shorthand. And it makes searching difficult.
I'm not sure what to replace it with, possibly a comment would be clearer: `/* code here */` or at least `/* ... */`.
P.S. Collection expressions are an awesome new addition!