this is so timely ha. i just installed NixOS on my 4090 machine and was about to install CUDA.
i’ve used Chezmoi for years now pretty successfully. works on my Mac and Linux machines. it probably could be made to work on Windows. i am transitioning to NixOS, but i’ll probably keep using it anyway, since i still have Macs for work (and because they’re great laptops don’t @ me). the only real downside is that it only works for the home folder, so i have to manually control stuff for /etc
, but i generally prefer user configuration for most tools anyway.
i had messed around with Ansible for this in the past, but i didn’t really like it for this use case. it’s been a while tho so it’s hard to say why.
not to pile on, but you might also look at GNU Stow. i decided against it, but it’s there.
obligatory i s’pose: https://github.com/covercash2/dotfiles
right it’s a semantic argument and all this stuff is made up, but i’m specifically irked by some testing strategies that i’ve come across personally. big mocks and external dependencies are setup to test something simple in the business logic. it’s not always necessary to setup all that infrastructure to prove the correctness of a unit of code; that part should be abstracted away because it’s not necessarily relevant to the logic under test. the way the data is accessed, the authentication mechanisms, the overall schema—the integration points, if you will—are not necessary for unit testing. i would prefer, instead of broadening the meaning of what a unit test is, to scope the code into smaller more testable units that end up giving a better, more flexible design in the long run.
all that said, i really like this project and use something similar for testing, regardless of what kind of testing you want to call it.
this is a semantic argument that i don’t want to put too much weight into, but i tend to agree that if you need a database instance or an intricate mock you’re not really doing unit testing. what we’re talking about at that point is something closer on the spectrum to an integration test or else the function needs a better scope for its inputs. i mean, “a component that interacts with an external service” has a word defined for it: integration.
yeah Go’s pretty good, especially for web services. i don’t have much of a space in my toolbox for it personally, though that’s not a fault of the language.
there’s a difference between managing memory and managing resources more generally. a GC doesn’t know when you’re done dealing with a file or a database connection or some other collection of data structures that has some semantically non-deterministic lifetime.
Rust however can close resources automatically with its lifetime mechanism ;)
language is intrinsically tied to culture, history, and group identity, so any concept that is expressed through a certain linguistic system is inseparable from its cultural roots
i feel like this is a big part of it. it reminds me of the Sapir Whorf Hypothesis. search results and neural networks are susceptible to bias just like a human is; “garbage in garbage out” as they say.
the quote directly after mentions that newer or more precise searches produce more coherent results across languages. that reminds me of the time i got curious and looked up Marxism on Conservapedia. as you might expect, the high level descriptions of Marxism are highly critical and include a lot of bias, but interestingly once you dig down to concepts like historical materialism etc it gets harder to spin, since popular media narratives largely ignore those details and any “spin” would likely be blatant falsehood.
the author of the article seems to really want there to be a malicious conspiratorial effort to suppress information, and, while that may be true in some cases, it just doesn’t seem feasible at scale. this is good to call out, but i don’t think these people who concern their lives with the research and advancement of language concepts are sleeping on the fact that bias exists.
i mean, they didn’t use the word, but it does seem like the authors want to be able to draw a hard line somewhere, which seems like more of a religious/spiritual/philosophical argument than a scientific one
it does feel like that nuance was lost in the article. i’m personally a fan of panpsychism, which posits that everything is conscious but to degrees. i think with our current scientific understanding it doesn’t make sense to try and define a line between conscious vs primitive or “soulless” or whatever when we don’t even have a good definition of consciousness to begin with.
i guess i liked this theory when i was in college eating mushrooms on the regular, but isn’t it kind of weird? like, is a dog not conscious? or did they suddenly become conscious from mushrooms too? to me it feels like tool usage that enables written language is by far the biggest differentiator between humans and “lower” species. i mean, dolphins may be as smart as humans but they have no fuckin clue what their great great grandmother’s name was and have little hope of solving differential equations trying to draw in the sand with their flippers.
maybe this is just my belief system, but i don’t think eating a mushroom gave anyone a “soul”. i know the feeling of coming down and feeling like you’ve left the cave and everyone else is just looking at shadows on the wall, but those people are conscious of the shadows at least.
it’s super weird that people think LLMs are so fundamentally different from neural networks, the underlying technology. neural network architectures are constantly improving, and LLMs are just a product of a ton of research and an emergence after the discovery of the transformer architecture. what LLMs have shown us is that we’re definitely on the right track using neural networks to solve a wide range of problems classified as “AI”
@chrash0
@lemmy.world