I’m wondering if it is that simple. Does the observer needs to have a “consciousness” ? Is a photon colliding with an atom is consider as the observer, or is it the scientist that lighted up the atom which is the observer ?

If we takes Schrödinger cats, when does the measure happen ? When the sensor detect the radioactive particle ? When the cat realize its death ? When the box is open ? When someone actually looks inside the box ?

That’s true questions, I’m trying to understand quantum physics since years, but the sources I find are either too simple ("The cat is both dead and alive, It means there are parallel universe !), either too complicated (directly jump to equations).

My favorite one remains the Piet.

And also my favorite programs is How to compute Pi in Piet, where result precision depend on the resolution of program image 🤣: https://www.dangermouse.net/esoteric/piet/samples.html

AI was trained on the whole code Humans have ever produced. Not the best code. Not code that is accepted as “good code”. Not even code that has been reviewed to filter crappy code. On any line written by a any human. So code produced by AI can be at best “average”. And depending on if you are a junior or a senior, globally average code can be good or bad relative to yours.

Don’t forget that in any LLM traning data is the whole twitter history of @pussyslayer69…

I use AI for small, atomic, stuff that don’t bring any intellectual value to spend time for.

Like “Typescrit. Find smallest element in an array”. “Python. Simulate keboard event to avoid computer going to sleep mode”. Or copy/past error message because I missed an import and I just want to know which one.

I also use it sometime for well identified algorithm that could be interesting but are not the core of the problem. Like “C#. Clustering algorithm to group points together in a point cloud”.

The generated code is catastrophic in term of performances/memory, but it’s good enough 80% of the time.

But eveytime I tried to use AI for higher level stuff, or that require several interdependant concepts, it ended up into hallucination pit.

• I have this problem
• Cool ! Use solution A !
• Doesn’t work
• My Bad, use solution B !
• Doesn’t exist
• Indeed ! For this problem you should apply method A which will work !
• (-_-)’

In this case, I don’t think silverbullet is the right tool. It’s not like if an “admin” can hide all the complexity for end users by creating its own frontend. The complexity will still be visible to end users. As long as someone can edit a page, he will see the lua script behind.

If readonly, it just look like other wiki. The https://silverbullet.md/ site is itslef written in silverbullet. You can have a look to video to see how it works: https://silverbullet.md/Manual

Out of the box, there is no really “Admin” portal and “User” portal. It may be doable, but I cannot describ a workflow. I use it as a small wiki for my homelab because I like overcomplicated tool. I’m on neovim btw 🤣

It can. Silverbullet can do quite anything, that’s where it’s name comes from. You can code your own logic directly in markdown through lua like code, get pages tags, generates tables etc… but the tool is very “hacky”. Either you love it, either you hate it. And if you are not a hairy nerdy guy, you will hate it.

Looks like a fork bomb with extra steps.

That’s a gross oversimplification.

Off course it’s a gross simplification ! It’s a 1 line comment regarding one of the most fundamental theorem of modern mathematics. If some mathematicain came here, he would also say your comment is still a gross oversimplification. Stop nitpicking.

You’ve previously assumed that the universe is a computable formal system.

I’m paraphrasing what I understood from the 3 books I read. Turing machine is deterministic. If given the same inputs, you have the same ouputs. But Quantum mechanics is not. First, because you cannot put a quantum state exactly in the same state that another one (No-cloning theorem), then because quantum result are intrinsectly probabilistic and are not the consequence of a mechanical procedure. So, univers cannot be fully simulated by a finite Turing machine (and even maybe by an infinite one ?). This has been recently proven, and the proof rely on Godël’s theorem: https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.22950

How would a quantum computer even work if it weren’t described by a formal system?

Seems like there is still no formal system to fully describe Quantum Mechanics. There are mathematical models, but there are models, not exact description. And even Feynman said it may be impossible to fully understand quantum mechanics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SczWCK08e9k

I’m putting conditional everywhere because I’m not a physisist. If I’m wrong, please put sources.

Then, there is the Orch OR’ theory which state that consciousness arises from quantum processes. This theory is currently heavily criticized, so for now it’s more a question of belief than proven statements. That’s why I started my first comment by:

“'I’m quite convinced AGI cannot […]” and not by “AGI cannot […]”

I’m quite convinced AGI cannot be achieved on a Turing machine, whatever its size or complexity.

Arguments against it are mainly based on Gödel’s incompleteness theorems and are described in books like “Minds and Machines - Alan Ross Anderson”, “Consciousness in the universe. A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory” or even “Mind” from Alan Turing himself.

I’m not claiming I understand all the arguments written in these books, but it seems that Gödel’s incompleteness theorems also apply to universe and consciousness. To briefly summarize Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, it states that a formal system cannot describe everything. There will always be thing which are beyond his reach. A Turing Machine is a formal system. This means that a Turing Machine will never be able to simulate our universe or replicate consciousness, and thus to replicate a human brain.

However, it could be feasible with Quantum Computer that are not based on formal system.

I was prepared to use my Cunningham Law mental model to correct your article, but no. I have nothing to say 😊

I’ve seen way too many wrong usage of git merge/rebase in lots of article but you get the point and clearly explained it.

Maybe just at the end, instead of

git checkout main
git pull
git checkout feature-branch
git rebase main

I would just do:

git fetch
git rebase origin/main

This avoid checkout main and checkout back to working branch, which may takes times on big repos.

You mean that a company whose business rely on collecting user data actually collect user data ?

Everytine I’ve seen a pre-commit hook in my job, it was something that should have been in integration pipeline.

You should not run linter, test or any static analysis tool in a pre-commit (I’m looking at you husky 😡). Why ? Because:

• It takes time. A commit should be instantaneous.

• It may change the content of the commit or of the repos without explicite action of the developer.

• The developper’s branch is the developper’s mess. He don’t have to respect any convention, any quality gate or any workflow on its branch. Quality gates should happen only when integrating into trunk.

I always commit and push on Friday afternoon before leaving as “WIP”, in case my computer crash during week end. I don’t want to address issues of a WIP job. I just want to backup my work.

I may commit several time per minute, and do a rebase latter. I don’t want to spend 2min each time waiting for eslint to parse the repos. I don’t want to fix styling because I now I will fix it later and rebase -i before pushing.

You can use custom pre-commit in your own workflow, but forcing all developer to have the same pre-commit is a bad idea.

“Next-gen AI computing for seamless 3D Gaming”

What’s AI has anything to do with 3D ? Apart maybe for DLSS and Neural Radiance Field, AI has nearly no application in current 3D gaming. Stop putting AI into fucking everything just to look cool !

“Bad abstraction is worse than duplication”

Oh shit, thank you so much for this part ! I don’t even count number of time I had to face enthusiasts developers saying "These lines of code are very similar, let’s factorize them ! "

And that’s how MathManagerHelper class is born…

I gave a try to jj. It’s fine for personal projects or small team and make the workflow a bit easier. No more “git add; git commit; git push” each time you do a modification. You just “jj git push” and everything will be automatically pushed.

However, the biggest criticism I have is that he doesn’t encourage to push every time. It really encourages you to keep your modif locally and push only to create a PR, and that’s not a good approach.

Even if you code is WIP, even if everything crash, you really should push your code to backup it. Who cares ? As long as it is not on master branch, it’s your own mess.

Ok, fine, what’s the point of generating commit message based on what’s already inside the commit ?

Commit messages are supposed to give informations that are not in the modfied code. It’s supposed to be the “why” you did this, not the “what” you did !

Wow, thanks for feedback. I’ve rephrased some of the sentences.

You remarks make me think a talk I had we a colleague. I thought for a very long time that univers were actually like what we describ through equation. There were really some “energy gauge”, “mass”, “speed”, etc… until this colleague told me “That’s just a model, it’s not the reallity. it gives good results in its field of application, but it will always be just an approximation.”

I never really understood the advantage of worktree over having just several clone of the repos on different folders.

Can someone explain me ? I should have missed smth.

It was usefull for me. Not everyone is a webdev 🙂

Exactly what I needed !

I recently moved my blog from wordpress to markdown based using pelican and codeberg and I was looking for hosting solution.

I just managed to deploy it to statichost (https://kissyagni-blog.statichost.eu/). I struggled a bit with DNS redirection but it seems to work now. Can anyone confirm ? https://kissyagni.com/