← | Results 3251 ... 3500 found in all logged channels for 'f:diana' | →
(ossasepia) diana_coman: that "some kind of order" suddenly illuminates dorion's earlier vision of jfw the order restorer
(ossasepia) diana_coman: jfw: how/why the gypsy code signing key? ie you are using them, aren't you?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: jfw: I know you know what you should do!
(ossasepia) diana_coman: jfw: python 2 indeed; the thing with this growing list is that all those should be genesised really, huh.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: dorion: certainly.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: well, "wordpress"
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: mpwp for that matter...
(ossasepia) diana_coman: heh, how the list grows once one actually looks.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: if spyked or jfw genesis that ledger, I guess that would be therefore added to the list too.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: here's the discussion with the cal3d guy in #eulora
(ossasepia) diana_coman: I invited the guy from cal3d to #eulora and there was a talk after which he faded silently away and that was that;
(ossasepia) diana_coman: cal3d theoretically is "active"; in practice..
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: effectively crystalspace and cal3d can be added to the list since it's not like anyone other than S.MG working with those versions /doing anything with them anyway.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo needs concrete stuff, can't go "everything"
(ossasepia) diana_coman: jfw: eh, don't be *that* greedy! what, do you want to fork Microsoft's Office now?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: jfw: well, it certainly can't hurt to make it error-free and moreover, certainly better to not leave them that easy option to "disregard", sure; just not much to do with any on the fence, that's all (and I do get your annoyance with sloppiness, oh my, how I get it).
(ossasepia) diana_coman: jfw: the minds that discard the message because of less than perfect spelling though might be better off enjoying their fence.
(ossasepia) diana_coman notices that jfw offered to spellcheck dorion's message before posting :D
(ossasepia) diana_coman: dorion: apparently hearing ears are in very short supply but again, if you don't try, you can't know if there are any in the audience anyway.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: do you have any qntra link for dorion to link there?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: dorion: not a bad idea at that
(ossasepia) diana_coman: as long as you don't entertain any misplaced expectations re their response, the rest is entirely fine.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: dorion: nothing wrong with that if you want it done, sure.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: dorion: re that follow up stuff on musl list - do you mean follow up with them? what are you aiming for - ie something you want stated on their board/list/whatever or what?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: you're the manager there so that's precisely the sort of decision you need to make anyway.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: dorion: sure, so state that conclusion there at your tmsr os statement, that's all.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: dorion: heh, right; still, the attempt in itself is useful because now you have a concrete result to point to rather than "what I think it might be"; this is after all the crucial difference, between "did and here's the result" vs "thought it will likely go so and ugh, maybe..."
(ossasepia) diana_coman: the reason why I asked you though is that you should decide one way or another on it and set it explicitly in that report - ie tried & even followed up once more, nothing useful coming out of it though, end of it.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: tbh to me it looks pretty much langyel-style anyway ie he wants to "answer your questions" and nothing more really, he's happy where he is and there's nothing else of any interest.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: dorion: neah, you did nothing bad/wrong there.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: dorion: the q "what's your take on it" is re conclusion to this since you can't wait for him indefinitely or something.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: dorion: sure, the exchange looks ok to me; at most clearly super-friendly on your side.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: dorion: so what's your take on it?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: no rush re comments from my point of view, for sure.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: spyked: sure re plain-text, no argument at all there.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: spyked: ah, certainly; and yeah, years ago I used gnucash so I know what you're saying there; and again, the *idea* of ledger is great as far as I can see, right on target; if only there was anyone in there actually stubbornly keeping to precisely that, rather than blindly going with the flow of "adding contributions" and whatnots; such are the sad stories of software over the last 2 decades.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: ftr re clock, my scripts don't bother with "end of task" - there's no end to anything, only start of next thing whether that's break or whatever; since time is spent anyway, the start of a new thing is by definition the end of the previous.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: nevertheless, if it's indeed in use and useful, a genesis should be made; and possibly from there it might get trimmed in time.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: spyked: well, no boost dep is certainly a gain; and yeah, I'm sure that the earlier the version the less of a monster it is; that being said, I'm either really getting old or something but I can hardly see the point of >10k LOC for what can be done precisely as wanted through <1k lines of cmd line tools, huh.
(trilema) diana_coman: bvt: also, mind packing in next vpatch either removal of that Makefile or an update to it so it covers the new .gpr files? As it is now it's doing half a job and even that unclear why via makefile anyway - it would possibly make more sense to just have one .gpr file that allows you to build all with a single command but anyways.
(trilema) diana_coman: ... of mpi_fix_copy_incr
(trilema) diana_coman: ... that; for illustration, here's the output from vtree and antecedents on eucrypt_oaep_fix_checks.vpatch (ran in the same test dir that can be had from here); antecedents gives the correct path genesis->ch6->ch7->ch9->ch10->oaep_fix_checks, but in vtree's output it's very hard to tell that ch10 is meant as child of ch9 rather than ...
(trilema) diana_coman: bvt: the antecedents/descendants commands behave as expected now indeed; the output from vtree though seems confusing as it is now because of the order in which children are apparently shown in between siblings so that one has to track and count spaces to be able to say what belongs where and what seems the child of the node immediately above turns out to be meant instead of child of node 2 lines above, not sure if you intended it like ...
(ossasepia) diana_coman: I guess I can use the unexpected extra free time for practicing chopping laurels and meditating on their fragrant remains.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: as far as I can see I answered everyone that actually used younghands.club today and I even have time to spare, huh; (if I missed anyone/anything, please ping me!)
(ossasepia) diana_coman: in other boring statements of the obvious, I shall inform log readers that the whole point of a review is to find out what worked (so you can keep doing it), what didn't (so you stop doing it) and what is somewhere in between (so you improve on it).
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: framing and links are a good addition indeed.
(trilema) diana_coman: I'll get around to it later today and will let you know how it went.
(trilema) diana_coman: bvt: thanks!
(ossasepia) diana_coman: jfw: lolz, illustrating how homework is to be done? :D
(ossasepia) diana_coman: jfw: that's what I'd expect, indeed.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: jfw: the "worst it can do is to lose all your money", lol; what else.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: jfw: that's the thing - the offline wallet can't protect operator against incorrect inputs basically; that's just not possible, since offline means precisely "can't check what it's fed"
(ossasepia) diana_coman: jfw: ah, certainly worth noting the "worst it can do" if at all possible to set it anywhere below "lose all your money" - because by default for anything online, that'd be the straightforward assumption I'd say; but I see what you mean.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: (on practical grounds, probably malicious is enough and more likely than outright malefic node, I suppose)
(ossasepia) diana_coman: jfw: yes, but do you see somehow the offline wallet meant to protect someone against compromised/malefic online nodes in general?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: lobbes: for as long as you take that passive approach ie "x is sucking up time" rather than the active "this is my time and I spend it on x ", how could it even happen differently, really?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: jfw: hm, do you mean that as in a compromised online node?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: dorion: perhaps worth noting that reviews of written text can be briefly described as "kill your darlings" ; to build up the proper expectations perhaps.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: lobbes: the trouble with this "until X" approach is that there's always a Y to take the place of X.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: dorion: anyway, if it's first draft, then finish it at least and can do a review on the whole, not like there's much to gain from polishing the intro now.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: hm, coming like that out of the blue I would be surprised if most get it; but I suppose it's perfect for an empirical exercise, lol
(trilema) diana_coman: bvt: ah, glad to hear you found the trouble; whichever way you prefer really, I can move the slot to Friday, not an issue (and otherwise plenty to fill the Monday time, heh)
(ossasepia) diana_coman: lobbes: well, tbh it sounds more like you have no time to have anything really, because the week first still went to saltmines anyway and then the supposedly quick & easy bot review turns out to be neither quick nor easy or something so dunno, doesn't sound all that great overall.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: dorion: either at re-read if not at writing - you need to be aware of when/what things you are "importing" and either explain them in text or in a footnote e.g. that "boiling frog complacency" in para 2 - do you expect it's a common ref ?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: even to "bring the points together" would work, sure.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: dorion: that would certainly help but it's still not quite enough; if you want to keep those in it's fine but you need to revise them so they read more clearly; maybe look at them and attempt to extract what point you are trying to make with each, in as few words as possible; then rewrite the paragraph starting from/with that.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: dorion: what do you mean by "to cure the points together"?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: but then he won't play with the red fire truck :P
(ossasepia) diana_coman: dorion: the first paragraph is both running out of breath (you're packing in one sentence 10+ years of your life there, aren't you) and not absolutely needed as it is; as it stands for now, you could probably start directly with the 3rd paragraph and nobody will notice much.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: ah, sounds fine then.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: jfw: so what's the plan there, focus now on genesis + docs + trial with MP and then add those in a vpatch on top or what?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: what's that difference between where you'd like it and good enough for now at 2) ?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: jfw: basically you need some sharper motivation for any reviews and the like, lolz
(trilema) diana_coman: bvt: I forgot the "http" on the link to the .tar.gz in my latest comment on your site, would you mind fixing it for me? something's still weird with that eucrypt dir & v.sh so I've uploaded it, if anyone else wants to have a look at it.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: dorion: argh, do you need some laurel soup or what?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: ... you find what makes most sense.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: also, do me a favour and include in your weekly review a brief summary of qntra activity set next to the matching one from past week (a simple thing, should not take more than 15 minutes to make - and if it does take more than automate the making of this report to start with), eg something like a table listing perhaps authors vs topics & comments, with number of articles/comments in each cell - this is just a quick idea, ...
(ossasepia) diana_coman: the above is the sort of "split the problem" that helps, literally isolating bits that can be done separately and then basically piped together as desired, at any time.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: ... then a separate part can be the one inserting a comment even possibly out of a list you make ; etc.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: ... (and here you can define whatever filters you want at any time but they do NOT mess up the previous list, they simply FILTER it and spit out those urls passing the filters as output) - for instance you can have a filter to check for a comment form or a filter to check for activity in 2019 or more recent or a filter to check that the word "bitcoin" appears at all, whatever + you can always combine them but *once you make them*; ...
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: as an aside, for the crawler etc, the whole thing is cleanly split into a few distinct parts to start with namely: collecting as many urls as can be reached/found from a starting url (and this normally would be iterated in turn on all new urls found until ~nothing new is added, that's pretty much how you can tell you explored at least whatever is connected in the least); separate from this quite entirely is filtering ...
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: it seems to have at least ~stabilised basically so I'd say publish it already so you can move on to the practical implementation of each point; basically once it's there, look at it each day and aim your work to hit at least one of the stated aims.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: sounds reasonable.
(trilema) diana_coman: eh, unbalanced!
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: well, the review should show in clear whether better or worse and where + why; that's one of its roles anyway.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: and given 100% experience to date around here, I ask to save the time, yes.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: that sounds right; my q was mainly as your blog has been rather quiet and so it's hard to say if/what is moving forwards, at what pace/whether anything stuck, etc.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: dorion: no need to ping, feedbot should do that for me, so no worries there.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: was this your plan or is it triggered now by my ping on it?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: when is your eta for that plan? or are you still iterating it or what's the status there?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: jfw: unrelated, I quite enjoyed the detailed methodology description for your latest article, heh.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: cool; meant to add there just in case it's not clear - this doesn't mean you can't still set homework (esp if you already sold it as "with homework") - for one thing those who do it will benefit anyway, for the other it's not much trouble for you in itself; only don't build it on the shaky foundation that giving the homework will have a visible effect, pretty much,
(ossasepia) diana_coman: jfw: do those points make sense to you as they are?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: dorion: comment in your modq; and meant to say - it's worth perhaps checking the modq regularly really.
(trilema) diana_coman: aww, jfw missed a 5th s in there with that predations.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: http://logs.ossasepia.com/log/ossasepia/2020-03-06#1020243 - perhaps use this cost to your advantage ie keep it in mind upfront so you don't end up in the situation where you pay it yet again; it's perhaps not in itself productive, but it comes from a healthy need to analyse that fuckup so -hopefully- it doesn't repeat, so perhaps not wasted either.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: there might be more but meanwhile my morning slot is gone, sheesh. We can talk of it later.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: so no, for this as for the very first point above, that should be an option that *you* offer on *your* decision, not theirs.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: 4. the moment you set out to everyone the options "more homework but you pay less" vs "less homework but you pay more", you'll get ~everyone going for "pay less" because guess what, in theory and hallucinated-with-all-the-good-intentions, they ALL see themselves as great at doing any homework because of course, wonderful!!
(ossasepia) diana_coman: 3. if the recovery from missed /late/etc homeworks is 2-3 lessons, that doesn't seem to *justify* introducing otherwise the way larger trouble of policing homework (and it comes with more than just the exact how to, it's basically just not worth it).
(ossasepia) diana_coman: 2. when people group, they inevitably *choose* to share the costs and this includes costs other than money; so you can't insulate "the faster ones" fully from the consequences of their own choice to share the costs with "slower" ones. (And I'm biting my tongue here to keep to your terms.)
(ossasepia) diana_coman: ... mile off if you just look at how they work & interact otherwise - so it's very easy indeed to simply offer that special and rare person the cheaper option; basically as a special offer for them because indeed, it is for them; I guess another way to put this is that your assumption re which group is predominant and which ones are the exceptions turns out to be the exact opposite of what can be observed in practice.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: http://logs.ossasepia.com/log/ossasepia/2020-03-06#1020244 - the core idea is good but its practical translation doesn't seem to look much at the...practicals. To unpack a few things: 1. the type that not only "wants to" but actually reliably, timely and persistently does the homework is anyway scarce in general and moreover apparently extra scarce in your environment there to the point that I suspect you can tell one of those from 1 ...
(ossasepia) diana_coman will be back tomorrow.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: jfw: re timing it's weird that apparently exactly 7pm utc somehow is impossible, either earlier or later works; but anyways, at last minute - that really sounds like you are probably better off without any homework-police and just add the 2-3 sessions extra time by default to give you room; ie give homework for practice but plan for pretty much if they don't do anything.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: well, I need to go in ~5 minutes anyway.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: this is part of the reason behind my question to jfw above - it's not as much about policing what they do as it is about making sure you don't promise what you can't control in the end.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: dorion: well, they are perfectly entitled to pay you for lessons they don't attend, I don't quite see the problem with that in itself; the trouble starts only if your promise is of an end result (and language schools as far as I know are never that foolish to make hard promises on that, heh)
(ossasepia) diana_coman: http://logs.ossasepia.com/log/ossasepia/2020-03-06#1020224 - dorion, this is the good idea indeed but translating it to practice doesn't seem to be yet fully clear.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: http://logs.ossasepia.com/log/ossasepia/2020-03-06#1020222 - do you have this in mind for groups too? how do you decide there if you can or can't keep the pace when 2 will do the homework and the 3rd won't do it?
(trilema) diana_coman: and sure, one can still branch (effectively on the manifest file), but again, I don't see the situation where the leaves are not obvious even in a huge tree.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: lobbes: is there a review/update missing from you?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: jfw: what was the situation re homework on the previous run, both in terms of amount done/not done and in terms of consequences to advancing at the pace you had designed?
(trilema) diana_coman: http://logs.ossasepia.com/log/trilema/2020-03-06#1959017 - if you mean the branches from before the manifest was introduced in that specific tree, it's not that much "with a manifest" really; but in any case, regardless of how many leaves there are, they are still obvious enough in a tree text dump so that I don't think it's needed separately as such.
(trilema) diana_coman: the points were not the...point!
(trilema) diana_coman: o.O cybertorture
(trilema) diana_coman: ahaha, that's the list of "we didn't push, they just jumped"?
(trilema) diana_coman: I have no idea; that's what the spam said and it made to me ~as much sense as that log.
(trilema) diana_coman: I'll counter that with today's blog-spam: "metal pants!"
(trilema) diana_coman: bvt: cool, I should be able to give it another spin on Monday the latest (or so is the current plan).
(trilema) diana_coman adds it to the list of wtf.
(trilema) diana_coman: mp_en_viaje: well, since it does, there must be an issue; no reason though, lol.
(trilema) diana_coman: or at least no need that I can see, even if the tree is huge.
(trilema) diana_coman: bvt: looks perfectly fine to me; and as long as there is how to see the whole tree in text , there's no need as such for separate leaves, no
(trilema) diana_coman: I doubt being right is their concern at all really.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: adding to the list for the logs, re [trilema.com/2014/lets-pretend/][gold vs bitcoin]
(ossasepia) diana_coman: and otherwise in English directly, I suppose this
(ossasepia) diana_coman: the article itself translates to Romanian Greenspan's talks but the links get you to the original so there's nothing lost.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: dorion: and otherwise perhaps follow those links from http://trilema.com/2010/alan-greenspan-si-criza/
(ossasepia) diana_coman: well, law I'd say is always dubious to "regularize" since it's country specific by definition.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: and moreover, there is always the fact that "they are not as good as we *actually* are" is ~always the retort /way to compensate really.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: at any rate, what rubs there is that on one hand "they are behind us!!!" but on the other hand the hard reality is that "the advanced" are the ones without the choice because look that all that advanced is not enough by itself so...
(ossasepia) diana_coman: it's in a sense very much the equivalent of this really; the point of the exercise (and the cuban doctors example just reinforces it) has nothing to do with the actual clinical experience or anything related to the medical act as such.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: yes, and I fully get the frustration; but it's nevertheless the rather naive sort of attempting to judge on professional grounds what is in fact simply the politics of a situation.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: eh, resentment is very easy to find reasons for.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: lol; but that could take more time to learn, indeed! how to make do *without*
(ossasepia) diana_coman: well, so do they find it to be very different?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: I guess the equivalence/recognition of degrees is always classed on higher levels of bureaucratic hurdles because of work rights and the like
(ossasepia) diana_coman: http://logs.ossasepia.com/log/ossasepia/2020-03-05#1020131 - heh, I'd class it as entry level; for some fun, see the place that sends you mad perhaps.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: billymg: I guess the clearest statement he has written himself would be this
(ossasepia) diana_coman: billymg: eh, it's not like it has to be trilema or something; but certainly can't build anything other than nonsense on *just quotes*; and for that matter if he needs greenspan quotes, I'm sure he can find plenty, lolz; (as an aside, contravex is "not trilema" in that pete dushenski at that time was just re-writing what he understood of trilema so dunno exactly what not-trilema)
(ossasepia) diana_coman: http://logs.ossasepia.com/log/ossasepia/2020-03-05#1020113 - dorion, at any rate, it's pretty much *this* what you have most interesting to add because you get to talk there from the inside; the rest is all the context really and you can link it in and even weave it together but it's not likely to be much addition as such.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: and now the dig got me into early euloran history, lol; nevertheless, for the economy curious
(ossasepia) diana_coman: there is also the dialogue on economy for that matter but ...still not quite there.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: anyways, don't let this fully eat up the time now
(ossasepia) diana_coman: dorion: that's a preview/early thing only, hm.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: dorion: outline away for sure; and yes, you basically have a lot of unwritten articles that got triggered by the "omfg, he's FINALLY writing, let's go!!!"
(ossasepia) diana_coman: though hm, now re-reading it all I think there was some discussion too because I distinctly recall the issue of allocation/distribution of resources in more detail, hm
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: yes! thank you!!
(ossasepia) diana_coman: I suppose I can add the squares do morals. a porno to the pile of refs relevant but not the one.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: I know; and you must realise that the same words you read have been there for a long time so it's not like people don't pay them attention just because they aren't in a fresh article or something
(ossasepia) diana_coman: dorion: beyond those specifics though, the point at hand for your writing as such is simple: you do have something to add, sure, but that is mainly your inside & direct experience at the bank - and you'll certainly set this in the wider context, sure; but that is not to say you don't already have plenty for one intro on the article you've started on and the rabbit hole you are attracted by is huge
(ossasepia) diana_coman: heh, both add to it and can work but not what I had in mind :( it was more to dorion's point re pretty much how /what understanding of underlying reality is baked in one monetary system or another
(ossasepia) diana_coman: essentially allocation of resources , ah
(ossasepia) diana_coman: ah, there's a ref right for that, if only brain cooperates
(ossasepia) diana_coman: dorion: hm, let's see, for instance the essences series, a theory of economics, thinking about money and all the bitcoin-explaining articles - not enough refs for an intro?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: dorion: ah, now I realised I read your statement precisely the opposite, lol
(ossasepia) diana_coman: http://logs.ossasepia.com/log/ossasepia/2020-03-05#1020111 - this may or may not be, you know? for one thing, who knows what's in the mind of men and all that; for the other, do you mean that as in "they didn't have where/what to look at to get started on the critical look "?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: dorion: sounds rather more sensible indeed; do ask though if the intro is still troublesome or something.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: well, at least I guess I got now what the mini-thread was about; mainly about asciilifeform's understanding formed by tuning out bits; anyways, thanks jfw for bridging it in since you spent some time on it anyway.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: jfw: uhm, that would be easily settled though with a ...question, no?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: fwiw I don't think that the proposal is yet fully clarified, no; it has been discussed a tiny bit, mainly thanks to your questions yesterday but that's far from clarified; so I have no idea what exact vision is the "massively impractical" though obviously, it's not hard to come with any number of such visions.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: what was this understanding or what am I not getting?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: jfw: wait, he invited you to comment on his own understanding of MP's suggestion? uhm, how would you do that? lol
(ossasepia) diana_coman: ... instead, you can switch to that but I suspect you'll then find you'd much rather have already written one/several of those pending articles from your own series, heh
(ossasepia) diana_coman: http://logs.ossasepia.com/log/ossasepia/2020-03-05#1020108 - dorion, I can see what you mean there; you still have 2 options though: 1. if you'd rather finish now this article and publish, you can simply make those points concisely in the introduction since they are part of the wider context but not your current focus and provide the relevant links as supporting references; 2. if you'd rather switch and write the bitcoin article ...
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: ahaha, that's so typical bureaucracy, yes.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: ... how/where was that spec)
(ossasepia) diana_coman: jfw: iirc the processing simply extracted the bits relevant for the chosen branch (code/book) and otherwise the emphasis at processing time was more on typesetting and the like; the rest was still at comment-writing time really; though there was possibly some enforcing in that iirc you had to write first an explanation of what you mean to do and then the code (+ maybe the usual book contents structure though I don't recall in detail ...
(ossasepia) diana_coman: http://logs.ossasepia.com/log/ossasepia/2020-03-05#1020107 - congrats BingoBoingo on one fight with the local bureaucracy, I gather; do you need to register your birth certificate in Uy for the local id or why the bother?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: http://logs.ossasepia.com/log/ossasepia/2020-03-05#1020105 - jfw, would you mind summarising that mini-thread for me? The snr there used to be so bad I had stopped reading it altogether (though kept logging it for a while merely for not getting around to cleanup time) but trying to read it now following your link I even fail to extract any signal at all.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: jfw: thinking of it now I think he just picked some "special chars" and the like, basically had two interpreters/processors and that was that; did you have something specific in mind from there?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: ... human consumption and so meant literally as a "book of this program")
(ossasepia) diana_coman: http://logs.ossasepia.com/log/ossasepia/2020-03-05#1020104 - to some extent (though I esp recall his literate/illiterate vs structured/unstructured, heh); iirc he proposed in fact an even stricter separation of code from comments since his "language" (web was it called?) was meant to have then 2 processors, one for generating the code (aka for machine execution and so absolutely unreadable) and one for generating the book (aka for ...
(ossasepia) diana_coman: one full minute for ossabot to act, sheesh
(ossasepia) diana_coman: speaking of which - dorion, did that point make full sense for you in the end? or is it still rather fuzzy in parts/overall/unsure?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: jfw: and I'd say the asking in #t re sigs was useful and productive, possibly not even as difficult as it seemed, was it?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: http://logs.ossasepia.com/log/ossasepia/2020-03-05#1020089 - indeed there's point in responding! (and glad I didn't have to chase it up, too) ; re instrument - it's one thing to tune it, sure; it's another thing to tighten the string TOO much, that's the thing; it makes the very same sense for instrument as for writing - tuning is fine, but too much/incorrect "tuning" will sound rather poorly/break stuff.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: http://logs.ossasepia.com/log/ossasepia/2020-03-04#1020087 - ah, perfect then! say I want to see what was in the paste given there - how do I find the link to the bot's archived version?
(ossasepia) diana_coman will be back tomorrow.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: jfw: ah, not at all stuffy/bombastic/pretentious, no; and not nervous either; and note that I use adverbs correctly, it's highly (not "high") strung for a reason! if you think of how you tighten/loosen up strings on a guitar, that's pretty much the analogy there - you kept stretching and tuning and fiddling with it that the result is a highly strung (and generally too tightly but not only that) text/string.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: jfw: in principle there's nothing wrong with just agreeing to keep questions for the end (as some of them might be answered at times simply at a later point in the presentation) and otherwise set mandatory questions at the end, yeah
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: alright then.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: jfw: ahaha, that's good then; is it *you* asking questions though? :P
(ossasepia) diana_coman: jfw: since you have presentations at your Junto meetings for that matter, do you have questions at the end?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: yw; is it clear to you what & how there? because I really don't want that it blocks you even more somehow.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: (today's #e log is not directly on question asking but it is on exploring what is pretty much a big unknown and it touches at times on what makes for a better initial exploration precisely on the grounds you gave re possibly introducing bad assumptions if not simple enough)
(ossasepia) diana_coman: looking back at it (as I was initially rubbish at this part), I think initially I simply studied other people's questions to figure out how they managed it, lolz
(ossasepia) diana_coman: jfw: you know, one of the good things in academia is that you *have to* ask questions; as in, if you listen to a presentation, whatever it might be, on whatever topic and regardless of how well or badly made, at the end you *have to ask* at least x questions; that's practice, pure and simple and it...works.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: http://logs.ossasepia.com/log/ossasepia/2020-03-04#1020036 - heh, now I suspect you've been reading the #e logs of today, lol
(ossasepia) diana_coman: then once you have one small-enough problem, that you *know* how to solve *manually*, you simply take those manual steps and tell the machine to do them.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: basically you have a big problem to solve; you'll have to cut this into smaller problems so you can solve them; if needed, you cut and cut again (divide and conquer , pretty much)
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: it's not about elegant or anything of the sort; but to start with, a program executes a series of steps itself, it doesn't have to be one step one script; the point and my repeated asking for your "steps" is to figure out what are you trying to achieve at one *stage* if you prefer; ie stage 1: discovery of linked domains starting from a given domain; 2. finding all pages with a comment box for a given domain
(ossasepia) diana_coman: and it's quite possibly further coming from the fact that yeah, not much to get from asking questions of the clueless and so on, to the full context; but the solution is still...practice.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: jfw: that's pretty much the underlying cause really - in other words simply lack of practice.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: jfw: well, you probably have way more practice figuring things out on your own than through discussion, don't you?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: jfw: what do you mean by "too far"?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: jfw: is that what you are asking there?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: the first one seems quite clear ie the underlying concern is that including signatures in the same place as the vpatch/text requires some clear separation of the roles of those 2 bunches of (ultimately) text; so how is that to be achieved?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: jfw: specifically on the questions in footnote iv, the second one assumes the whiteout - it's unclear that is the desired approach to start with so maybe ask *that*? ie how would it work, maybe whiteout or something else/what?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: jfw: the thing with questions though is that they are precisely exploratory - it's true that at times you can indeed ask questions to help the other party explore but not *all* questions are like that, lol; at times you literally ask to figure stuff out so yes, necessarily *before* things are clear, lol
(ossasepia) diana_coman: jfw: well, your article there is quite highly strung and rather visibly the result of pain-writing; but the way it looks it's quite as you say in footnote 1 - you torture the writing because it's not as definitive as you'd want it to be, huh.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: what's though the core trouble you are having with this because it seems to me quite obviously going beyond curl/awk/sed/whatever command line ie you just don't see it as clear or specific enough steps at all, can't quite put my finger on it.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: to my mind the initial exploration aims to get literally as many domains as you can reach starting from a given point; so yes, it follows links from there but you don't really need to save other than those that point to *another* domain, do you?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: uhm, I don't quite get it - are you after the sites or after all pages of a site? (and even ...images??)
(ossasepia) diana_coman: jfw: so you have in that very article some questions re the signatures thread - why didn't you ask those in #t?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: did you run those on anything? on what? what did you get out of it? where do you run them next?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: more to the point: what steps do you have working, what did you obtain already with them, what's the next step and where are you with that ?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: jfw: ahaha, "eat your elephants in small pieces!"
(trilema) diana_coman: well, the pics I really wish I had would cover the '80s rather, so dunno; but anyway, since can't take them in past, might as well take them when there next, what else to do.
(trilema) diana_coman jots down note to actually take pictures next time she goes back to Ro.
(trilema) diana_coman: mp_en_viaje: it still reminds me of some Ro countryside.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: BingoBoingo: where are you with the scripts? kind of lost track of that part and saw only the drafts.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: jfw: why u no write? It's been a whole week!!1
(trilema) diana_coman clears up a pile of paper notes as the write-up is finally done.
(ossasepia) diana_coman will be back tomorrow.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: but I'd say the logical consideration flows from there - is it proper and fitting or isn't it.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: I suppose you can claim the term and aim to restore its original meaning if you think that is proper and fitting, why not.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: ... they *are* bureaucracy basically so it's not as much about what you do or don't but about what fits their desired-shapes anyway (after all, all those excel-powered departments could be replaced but that's exactly not desired and from solid underlying cause); third, "positioning as x" as such doesn't say all that much to me really, ie the practical thing may mean anything really so dunno what to say on it at that level.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: jfw: yw; dorion iirc IA has been around for a while and recently (like it usually goes it would seem) grabbed on as a not-yet-shittied-on term; so first of all, I think you might want to be fully aware of what IA goes for exactly those days (because you might mean one thing but those hearing you might take it for another thing entirely); second, in my (limited, admitedly) experience with bigger organisations the trouble may be that ...
(ossasepia) diana_coman: ie so you don't end up with a huge gap on the way even if they started at similar levels.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: jfw: with any group though, I suppose you'll want to have clear a. some matching upfront so you don't get too wildly different levels b. some way to enforce keeping-up on the way if you rely otherwise a lot on what they do on their own
(ossasepia) diana_coman: and what's the max for classroom style too, anyway.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: that's about it.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: then from there: above that max number, since you go to classroom style, what additional materials & structuring would you need; list those and other changes;
(ossasepia) diana_coman: what padding of extra lessons would you think is needed (if any) to give you some room if it turns out slower than you thought (but do keep this at a minimum as you don't want to double the time or something, obviously)
(ossasepia) diana_coman: jfw: you start with your experience so far; as it is - how do you see it stretching to 3 people, to 4 people to what would be the max you think it would still work as it is (+ those extra exercise but not much more than that)?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: jfw: basically the separation there is that you can think of the practical delivery of the lesson only and so do the plan on that; then dorion can take that as input and think of the sales part.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: at low numbers it can make a big difference; and for this reason I'd say do get that out as soon as you can but then do the further thinking for higher numbers too because you'll probably get asked anyway
(ossasepia) diana_coman: jfw: but you come with what means "small group" really; because they may want 4 people, but if that's not working for you, you can still say groups of 3 and we can make 2 groups or whatever
(ossasepia) diana_coman: does that make sense?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: jfw: so have some proper thinking and come up with what you think is needed /what it means giving group lessons + what are the sizes that would work and in what timeframe; review those with dorion so he can then run his calcs on them and come out with the business' pov and resulting offer for the prospect(s)
(ossasepia) diana_coman: dorion: sure; and honestly, don't take it as any problem with it, there probably won't be "the ideal client" much anywhere; the point is just to have as few...surprises let's say as possible, pretty much.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: tbh it really sounds like one of those that must-get-a-special-discount but anyways; might as well calculate and figure out what group-options you can offer anyway.
← | →
Download hourly DB snapshot | Get Source Code