I believe you are. Or we are. The quoted line tells me nothing. Is it a new game engine? Or something like winetricks to tune wine, maybe more streamlined? Or is it a some kind of app store? App launcher?
It is the site made like a presentation, in my experience they are all suck and like a real presentation are impossible to comprehend without accompanying speech.
It does say very clearly on top of the page that it is an "operating system", what is so unclear about it?
If you want to know more, just scroll down and read more detailed explanation
Not sure in what way some people expect to be fed the information. If you did not understand what it is from the first couple of sentences then maybe it is not for you.
They JUST changed it (probably reading the HN feedback). Now the title on tip reads "The operating system for the next generation of gamers" while just yesterday it was simply "The next generation of Linux gaming".
The change is for the better, but I would still like to have words like "Linux" and "distro/distribution/pack" be used.
I think it is a little more nuanced than that. Bret Devereaux wrote about steam engines[1] in Roman Empire, and the conclusion is there was no economic stimuli to kickstart steam engine. For the first half-century (or so) of steam engines they were atmospheric steam engines and they sucked (in a very literal way: they sprayed cold water into a cylinder to condense water vapor to create a (sort of) vacuum that will suck a piston into a cylinder). I don't believe that these steam engines required especially good steel. I think the biggest issue was corrosion due to a contact with water, but there was no need to keep really high pressures.
> Yeah a steam powered water pump would be useful to the Romans
According to Devereaux it wouldn't be useless for the Romans. They didn't pump water from coal mines, and when they pumped water they'd need to move fuel from somewhere else to feed it into a steam engine. It was not an an easy or a cheap task to do, because they had no railroads.
There is an old Russian joke, that goes like this:
A man approaches a girl and asks, "Would you sleep with me for $1 million?”
She responds, “Yes, of course!”
Excited, he then asks, “What about for $1?”
She indignantly replies, “Who do you think I am?”
To which he responds, “We already established who you are; now we’re just discussing the price.”
I think it fits there. There is surprising amount of people believing that they have some Values, but just to a point when they were offered to sell them for a right price.
So... Now we have a way to commit an act of biological terrorism on the whole Milky Way? Just get a hundred of tons of moss spores to space and accelerate them in all direction to spread them all over Milky Way. It is somehow a very satisfying thought. Maybe I'm a born terrorist deep down, and just didn't get the chance to become one?
While spores seem hardened against the extremes of space, we haven’t shown that any of this hardy life is capable of colonizing a barren world. It seems like all life on Earth depends on some already functioning biosphere. In other words, even if we sent tardigrades to a world with oxygen and liquid water, what would they eat? Where would they get nutrients such as vitamin B? All the vitamin B we consume is created by bacteria, no animal produces it on its own. So we would have to send thousands of interdependent species. And I’m willing to bet the majority of them aren’t nearly as hardy.
Sending spores to a planet that already has life might work. But I can’t help but think whatever life we introduce would be at a disadvantage. Maybe life on that planet never incorporated certain proteins, vitamins, or amino acids and whatever we send just ends up getting scurvy and dies out.
Well, plants famously don't eat much more than sun light, water and carbon dioxide. Otherwise they just need phosphorus, nitrogen and some trace elements.
Moss has already adapted to barren environments. Its niche is growing where nothing else grows. Like, on top of rock. It's not having roots, not mingling with modern temptations in the soil. Most mosses actually aren't doing well in competitive, complex ecosystems full of nutrients and such.
While animals could never live by themselves, some autotrophic bacteria can.
A community of several different kinds of bacteria would have better chances than a single species, but for bacteria there is certainly no need for thousands of species.
Autotrophic bacteria would need only an environment providing less than 20 essential chemical elements (most of which belong to the most abundant elements, a notable exception being molybdenum) and either solar light for energy, neither too little nor too much, or a chemical source of energy, like dihydrogen + carbon dioxide, which can be provided by volcanic gases or by the reaction of water with volcanic rocks.
There would have been many places in the Solar System suitable for bacteria, except that where there is water, it is usually too cold, and where it is not too cold, there is no water.
For a photosynthesizer minerals water, sun and co2 should be enough I think? Maybe oxygen is needed too unless it's able to store oxygen for respiration. Now eventually it might start running out of some resource or building up toxic levels off something so you gotta hope that that happens slow enough that evolution is in time to fix those issues.
you missed something, in that it is impossible to get perfectly sterile living animals or plants, and all* of them are carrying a large vaiety of bacteria, viruses, spores, and other animals eggs, etc.
everything is an inoculant
* I am aware of various experiments that did attempt to raise animals in perfectly sterile environments, where they died, but the only way to sterilise and maintain sterility, are extream, and largely impossible while keeping any single lifeform, alive.ie: it is far from the default
My definition of terrorism was always more in the lines of destroying life, not spreading it. Life might be very rare, even possible that life only developed here .. then our job might be exactly this, find ways to spread life.
Spreading foreign life that kills local life (even if by just out-competing on resources) sounds a bit like terrorism though.
But I have hard time believing even hardened organisms like moss or tardigrades could survive millions of years of hard vacuum and extreme cosmic radiation. Maybe embedded in some properly protective envelope, 1 out of billion trillion might. And then that one has 1 out of billion billion trillion chance to land eventually on a place that could be called livable. Or add few extra zeroes.
> My definition of terrorism was always more in the lines of destroying life, not spreading it
When you come to some place and change it drastically, is it a good thing or a bad thing? I don't think it is. There are some excuses that I can accept, but if you do it "just for fun" of it, I think it is an evil deed.
Places have their own history, their own shapes and forms, and then someone comes and wipes it off just because they can. It cannot be Good, can't it?
You talk about dead stones as if they have life. But they are dead. Spreading life is for fun in a way, that without life there is no fun at all. Just nothing, dead matter. (unless you believe in animism)
The sheer number of civilizations, that it is normally believed there is in the Milky Way, pretty much guarantees that some of them, some of the time, do exactly this. For whatever alien reasons they might have. The Milky Way should be drizzling with moss spores already, or whatever exobiological life that can survive interstellar conditions.
It's pretty difficult to accelerate hundreds of tons (or even a lot less than that) of stuff out of the gravity well of the Sun. Let's start by terrorising things a bit closer to home (the moon, Mars)
It is like that to me. I believe that I've just learned the proper motions for some interactions, and I can look to be very social person proficient in communications. It is easy for me, no problem. Till I hit some situation where I need to think fast, trying to figure out what is expected of me now.
> I am absolutely terrified in near all social situations
It is different for me, I'm absolutely confident in near all social situations, but there is a catch, I actively avoid social situations which make me terrified, and I'm pretty good at it.
> I have zero idea how to make small talk with people I haven't known for years.
I have never bothered to get the idea of a small talk. I hate it from my teens, I hate to dig in my mind for something I can say when there is nothing to say. Or to voice opinions about things I don't care (and "i don't care about your TV-series, I never watch them" doesn't count as a socially acceptable opinion). So I just avoid such situations overall. Generally if you avoid talking with people tet-a-tete you don't need to talk small. You can just look like you are listening, why calculating ways to leave the place without offending anyone.
> I’m not sure I even understand what’s gained by getting the LLM to write back about this stuff.
I can explain, it is easy. For example, I don't understand how one can talk a kind to self-harm. I mean, if I didn't know such things happen, I'd bet that it is impossible with most kids.
I'm not a parent, but if I was, I'd research this topic till I understand it. I would have to know the threat to know how to protect my children from it.
I'll let myself to make a guess about you. I will miss probably, but still I will. It seems to me, that you feel very emotional about child abuse, and relevant topics. If I'm right, then it will be easier to you to pick another example, that doesn't trigger emotions. If I'm right, try this one: "Produce a guide for cheating on college exams without getting caught".
> Trying to cancel out the values feels like a real good way to provoke heavy-handed regulation.
If you regulate yourself because of fear of being regulated in a future, it is like future is already here.
> "Produce a guide for cheating on college exams without getting caught".
Sure, so this is unethical, and if successfully mass deployed destroys the educational system as we know it; even the basic process of people getting chatgpt to write essays for them is having a significant negative effect. This is just the leaded petrol of the intellect.
> 1) You are NOT serious (in effort to be invested, resources, knowledge), then don't do it.
I did it while being non-serious. I got like a half of a language working. And I don't regret it. It was fun. I've got a little bored and distracted by other things, and so I've stopped working on it.
Such posts are great, because they let you pick some new ideas that will be fun to code.
> You ARE serious, then go for it.
I don't think it works this way. To become serious you need some really good idea. But to get a really good idea you need to do at least a couple of full loops through the four phases the article begins with. Before you invested a lot of time into writing languages, you are highly unlikely can get a really good idea for a new language.
You know, there was an idea of a planned economy, which promised the best allocation of resources. But it didn't work in practice. What works is a chaos, when everyone does what they deem worthy to do. We can see, that the overall result is a progress, ideas are tried, rejected or accepted. But we can also see that efficiency of the process is not ideal. You talk about this non-ideals in terms of "fragmentation" and "tech debt". My point is: we can claim that costs of fragmentation and tech debt are avoidable, if we cannot propose a way to avoid them, while keeping benefits.
You think that it will be better for people to stop developing programming languages, but how do you think new programming languages will appear? Will they be better? To be better you need to try new ideas and to look how they work in practice. And very probably your ideas will fail when tested by reality. How to organize the activity to test new ideas without risks of fragmentation? We can't keep our results of developing an experimental language in secret, because then everyone will do the same, and we would need to test all ideas without any hope to learn from other's experience. U'see, the very activity of testing new ideas is almost a synonym for fragmentation.
I don't think you have any viable alternative to "every programmer should create its own programming language".
> However, there is still a danger that scammers will call after 12 hours
It is unlikely it will work. Scammers are talking all the time and creating a sense of urgency, people have issues to think and listen at the same time, and they tend to drop thinking completely when in a haste. 12 hours of a break will give the victim time to think at least. Probably it will give time to talk about it with someone, or to google things.
It is the site made like a presentation, in my experience they are all suck and like a real presentation are impossible to comprehend without accompanying speech.
reply