Just use sublime text (anti-vim rant)
-
GNU's Not Unix, anyone?
-
Along with Wine Is Not an Emulator, this is proof that OSS people have no sense of humour
-
Along with Wine Is Not an Emulator, this is proof that OSS people have no sense of humour
I don't know, this gave me a chuckle when I figured out what it means.
-
If it's about who does actual development using touchpad, the amount of people drops to 2 - that idiot and @tar.
I carry around a mouse, but more often than not I don't bother plugging it in.
-
@Zecc Is Doing It Wrong™
-
I carry around a mouse, but more often than not I don't bother plugging it in.
I just don't use the mouse when developing much in any case. I rarely have the need to rummage through the menus.
-
I always buttumed it meant something like "KDE free burner" or something like that.
The real name is pretty cool, though.
-
compromise?
https://github.com/guillermooo/Vintageous/wiki/Command-line-Movement-Keys
What the hell? Aren't those are Emacs keybindings?Key Binding — Function
Ctrl+a — Go to beginning.
Ctrl+e — Go to end.
Ctrl+f — Move right.
Ctrl+b — Move left.
Ctrl+k — Kill text to the right.
Ctrl+u — Kill text to the left.
-
KDE free burne
That... actually makes sense. Didn't cross my mind tbh, guess that's because the whole "numbers sound like words" thing doesn't work in my language so it usually takes a bit longer for me to parse those anyway.
-
3 then - @tar, @Zecc and that idiot.
I know it's terrible underestimation, but my point is, it's so unusual it can be assumed people don't do that at all when designing UIs and arguing about efficiency. Kinda like with colorblind gamers.
-
the whole "numbers sound like words" thing doesn't work in my language
Do you also have the same problem that when reading English texts, the voice in your head still says numbers in your native tongue?
-
Do you also have the same problem that when reading English texts, the voice in your head still says numbers in your native tongue?
No, actually, once I start reading something in English I just switch to it and I'm able to understand and write in English without any conscious translation happening. Including numbers.
But other than things I already got used to (4 = for) I seem to get stuck on those kind of replacements for some reason. First time I read that joke where "seven ate(8) nine" it took me a good minute to parse.
Human brains, eh?
-
it's so unusual it can be assumed people don't do that at all when designing UIs and arguing about efficiency
A touchpad works pretty much like a mouse in terms of UI, so there's no point at all to catering specifically to touchpad users anyway.
Filed under: WHY THE FUCK DO I ALWAYS HAVE TO MANUALLY SELECT "English (United States)" FOR MY SPELLCHECKER IF spellchecker.dictionary IS SET TO en_US UNDER about:config
-
Filed under: WHY THE FUCK DO I ALWAYS HAVE TO MANUALLY SELECT "English (United States)" FOR MY SPELLCHECKER IF spellchecker.dictionary IS SET TO en_US UNDER about:config
At least you don't have to switch keyboard layouts on the fly on Windows. Damn that thing is discoursistent.
-
What the hell? Aren't those are Emacs keybindings?
Except for Ctrl+u, yes. Emacs treats that as “universal argument” which is a whole special level of strange.
-
A touchpad works pretty much like a mouse in terms of UI, so there's no point at all to catering specifically to touchpad users anyway.
Well, mice can't do multitouch gestures. Some applications do use them - but none is a development tool.At least you don't have to switch keyboard layouts on the fly on Windows. Damn that thing is discoursistent.
You know what is discoursistent? That when VirtualBox guest has English keyboard layout, on the host system I cannot type diacritics.
-
You know what is discoursistent? That when VirtualBox guest has English keyboard layout, on the host system I cannot type diacritics.
Well, that's a new one...
How about TeamViewer that picks up my layout (usually set to US) and it works properly even though the client's layout is set to HR, but if I start typing on my numpad (which also seems to work at random) it picks up the client locale and insists on using
,
instead of.
when using the decimal key on the numpad. Gyaaaah!
Filed under:
Ping request couldn't find host www,google,com
-
meta-meta-morality: debating what set of characteristics the system must have to be useful for categorizing different systems meant to categorize things as good and bad
Well, for starters, you've used three ‘meta’s but only described two layers of indirection.
Unless you're raising a good point: that any system useful for analyzing meta-moralities will necessarily be equally effective when applied to the analysis of meta-meta-moralities.
-
Well, for starters, you've used three ‘meta’s but only described two layers of indirection.
Morality: system meant to categorize things as good and bad.
Meta-morality: system for categorizing different systems meant to categorize things as good and bad.
Meta-meta-morality: debating what system to use for categorizing different systems meant to categorize things as good and bad.
Meta-meta-meta-morality: debating what set of characteristics the system must have to be useful for categorizing different systems meant to categorize things as good and bad.
-
meta: debating what
meta: system to use for categorizing
morality: different systems meant to categorize things as good and bad.
meta: debating what set of characteristics
meta: the system must have to be useful for categorizing
morality: different systems meant to categorize things as good and bad.
Not seeing that much of a difference there.
-
You're evaluating a system (1) that evaluates a system (2) that does something. Two layers of meta on top of the layer of "thing" the original system did.
-
In other words:
Morality - distinguishing good from bad.
Meta-morality - choosing system for distinguishing good from bad.
Meta-meta-morality - choosing system for choosing system for distinguishing good from bad.
Meta-meta-meta-morality - choosing system for choosing system for choosing system for distinguishing good from bad.
-
Now this has become a meta-meta-meta-meta-morality discussion anyway.
-
No, it's semantics discussion. Meta-meta-meta-meta-morality would be defining the goal we want to achieve by choosing the set of characteristics and so on.
-
-
defining the goal we want to achieve by choosing the set of characteristics and so on.
No. It cannot be goal-oriented to be useful. Meta-morality is where you analyze what goals different moralities (which claim to just be frameworks for evaluating the value of actions) actually serve; meta-meta-moralities would necessarily study the connection between the choice of meta-morality and the chooser's intended goal.
For instance, if studying the propensity of people to choose self-serving moral systems, one would expect a meta-morality to be able to objectively analyze what types of morality would serve what types of people. However, one's choice of meta-morality is likely to be influenced by the moral system that one would prefer to find useful, either for self-serving or moralizing reasons: thus meta-meta-moralities would necessarily be good at analyzing the degree to which meta-moralities are influenced by the same factors as the systems they are supposed to categorize. Hence my comment about the recursive nature of meta^n-moralities (n > 1), because any such system could just as easily be turned on itself, to determine its connection to the layer below it with the intention of discovering its hidden intentions.
TLDR: if you're discussing meta-meta-meta-morality hoping to accomplishing anything useful, you're wasting your time.
-
No, it's semantics discussion.
Ok, my answer for going frommeta
tosemantics
is for pedantry.
-
Ok!
Wait, who are we flagging?
Fuck it, nevermind, ima just flag everybody IDGAF.
-
TLDR: if you're discussing meta-meta-meta-morality hoping to accomplishing anything useful, you're wasting your time.
It's useful in death penalty debates.
-
-
It's useful in death penalty debates.
See, that's some good meta-meta right there: not making any value judgement in itself, just explaining what goal the discussion of meta-morality has in certain circumstances. We could apply meta-meta-meta-morality to it, though and consider what your assertion that meta-meta-morality has use has to say about your feelings about meta-morality or morality.
Aspiring for a badge are we?
-
See, that's some good meta-meta right there: not making any value judgement in itself, just explaining what goal the discussion of meta-morality has in certain circumstances. We could apply meta-meta-meta-morality to it, though and consider what your assertion that meta-meta-morality has use has to say about your feelings about meta-morality or morality.
The thing is, in morality, you analyze whether death penalty is moral or not, in meta-morality you analyze in what systems death penalty would be moral, in meta-meta-morality you analyze whether there is some inherent property in death penalty that makes it good in some morality systems and bad in others, and in meta-meta-meta-morality you analyze where the "inherentness" of those properties comes from and how it would change the model if it was different. Not sure about (meta-){4}-morality.Going meta helps a lot in gaining perspective, but the ultimate goal is always to determine if death penalty is good or bad.
-
Wait weren't we talking about keyboard layouts just now?
-
But if your morality system has an opinion about the death penalty, and your meta morality exists to reinforce that opinion by defending your moral system's legitimacy, likewise your meta-meta etc, none of these systems are going to be any good at categorizing anything. And if you're analyzing all these systems without ever entertaining the possibility of changing to another system should a reason for you to do so become apparent, you might as well just stick to first-order moralizing.
-
-
Whoever was responsible for the omission of the meta key from the qwerty keyboard should be shot.
Filed under: just a bit of meta-humor lol
-
But if your morality system has an opinion about the death penalty, and your meta morality exists to reinforce that opinion by defending your moral system's legitimacy, likewise your meta-meta etc, none of these systems are going to be any good at categorizing anything. And if you're analyzing all these systems without ever entertaining the possibility of changing to another system should a reason for you to do so become apparent, you might as well just stick to first-order moralizing.
The goal of categorizing is to show similarities and differences between things. And sticking to first-order morality doesn't give enough perspective to say anything meaningful on the matter, just like you can't tell how far the city is if you place your eyes on the ground (literally - by lowering your head very much).Whoever was responsible for the omission of the meta key from the qwerty keyboard should be shot.
Iunno. I've yet to use Scroll lock or right click key in my life. 101 keys is a bit too much I think.
-
-
Emacs
FTFY :Ptreats that as “universal argument” whichis a whole special level of strange.
-
And if you're analyzing all these systems without ever entertaining the possibility of changing to another system should a reason for you to do so become apparent, you might as well just stick to first-order moralizing.
Or just pick the right morality in the first place. Sheesh, was that so hard?
-
-
if you're discussing meta-meta-meta-
moralityanything hoping to accomplishing anything useful, you're wasting your time.
FTFY
-
I find that remark extremely offensive
I love the smell of offensiveness in the morning. Smells like...VICTORY.
-
OMG MICRO AGGRESSlON!
-
-
I've yet to use Scroll lock or right click key in my life.
I use the right-click key all the time!
-
MICROPENIS AGGRESSION!!!<x
-
I'm getting offended
-
I use the right-click key all the time!
Just to clarify, I meant this:
It would be a nice combo to be that one in billion guy who uses both touchpad with desktop PC and this most useless key ever.
-
I'm starting to love this thread *grabs popcorn*