So you say it's inspired by Obsidian (and call it an "alternative") but notably missing from your table of syntax support are [[wikilinks]], which for many (I would guess most) users would prevent this from being a drop-in replacement, even for just viewing a vault. Is there a reason you chose not to support them?
Yes, internal links will be introduced in the next version along with other features like standard theming and more. Ekphos is currently in a rapid development stage and is slowly reaching core markdown feature parity with Obsidian. Feel free to open a discussion in the gitHub repo for things that would be nice to add to Ekphos :)
Perhaps I'm overly sensitive to this and terminally online, but that first quote reads as a textbook LLM-generated sentence.
"<Thing> doesn't <action>, it <shallow description that's slightly off from how you would expect a human to choose>"
Later parts of the readme (whole section of bullets enumerating what it is and what it isn't, another LLM favorite) make me more confident that significant parts of the readme is generated.
I'm generally pro-AI, but if you spend hundreds of hours making a thing, I'd rather hear your explanation of it, not an LLM's.
> which I guess is true in a certain basic level...
Which is the level he's acknowledging it on. Short term profit that cannibalises product value and user goodwill is all-too-common in the modern corporate climate, and he's acknowledging the elephant in the room.
> ...but ignores how shitty that would contribute to making the internet
Presumably, that would be the reason "he considers it "off-mission""
While I agree that him phrasing his reason not to so weakly instead of "doing so would kill firefox" is a little concerning, a CEO probably doesn't want to be overly honest about the other, less investor-friendly elephant in the room, "the only reason anyone uses Firefox is for uBO".
But also, we don't actually know how exactly he said it, since it's not a direct quote. For all we know, it was an offhanded remark, or he said it in a tone that meant he knew what a terrible idea it was. We're trying to read tea-leaves from a single paraphrased remark.
This type of response is just stochastic parrotry, rather than displaying evidence of actual <whatever cognitive trait we're overconfidently insisting LLMs don't have>.
Yet more evidence that LLMs are more similar to humans than we give them credit for.
Never stops fascinating me how folks are arguing this kind of thing. Why make up an explanation for why this obvious mistake is actually some kind of elaborate 4D chess sarcastic "intention"? It's a simple machine, its network just didn't support making up a new Toy Story character. That's it! Simple as that! Occam's Razor anybody?
Or yes, maybe the regex I wrote the other day which also had a bug that missed replacing certain parts also had an "intention". It just wanted to demonstrate how fallible I am as a human, so it played this elaborate prank on me. /s
...Because Occam's razor is not assuming it's a "mistake"?
There's a thread full of people saying how clever humorous they find almost every headline.
The real 4D chess is dogmatically assuming it is not assuming it managed to by pure accident succeed in that dozens of separate times, because your dogma refuses to incorporate evidence to the contrary.
Occam's razor is that this system which no one actually understands the emergent capabilities of, and is convincing so many people it has intention... has intention.
I mean, I like (gen)AI, and spend a lot of time defending it from the "haters". I think it's a useful tool, interesting philosophical topic, and generally fun to play with. I'm even willing to entertain the idea that it might be truly intelligent, sentient, or possibly even self-aware in a meaningful way.
I still get an "ick" feeling when reading some of the most 4o-toned text that it puts out. It's just unsettling in an uncanny valley way.
Free childcare is an extremely business-friendly proposal (increases the workforce, reduces the need for costly parental leave). I'd say I don't know why it's not more popular with right wing neoliberals, but I know why (they're more anti-government than pro-economy).
Rent control is increasing popular and common in liberal areas (which NYC is)
Years Pres Senate House SC
2013-2015 D D(+8) R(+33) R(+1)
2015-2017 D R(+10) R(+59) -(+0)
2017-2019 R R(+4) R(+47) R(+1)
2019-2021 R R(+8) D(+35) R(+1)
2021-2023 D D(+0.5) D(+9) R(+3)
2023-2025 D D(+2) R(+9) R(+3)
2025-2027 R R(+8) R(+4) R(+3)
When exactly were the democrats supposed to "fix" the ACA without compromising?
Dems haven't had solid control of all three legislative bodies since it passed, and Republicans have vocally made it their priority to oppose the ACA in any way possible, and are unwilling to give an inch. Even the hair thin margin post-2020 was unusable for this due to the handful of DINOs that all needed to vote in lockstep.
Meanwhile, R's had unilateral control of the government for four straight years, and they voted to make everyone's lives worse, as you're complaining about. They said over and over they were going to repeal it, like you suggest, and then turned around and made it obvious that was a blatant lie. Because despite its flaws, even the gutted ACA is still wildly popular and a vast improvement over the previous status quo. (It turns out keeping workers healthy is critical for the economy)
This is not a symmetric problem. It really is one party making it worse.
> When exactly were the democrats supposed to "fix" the ACA without compromising?
The Democrats did have full control when they first passed the ACA and they ended up getting in their own way.
But I never said that the Democrats were supposed to fix it on their own. I said both parties are to blame.
It shouldn't require one team have full control for something to happen. That's the real issue. They refuse to work together, and somehow this gets them more support (votes). Both sides. Total shit show.
> The Democrats did have full control when they first passed the ACA and they ended up getting in their own way.
They didn’t. They had to heavily compromise with an Independent.
> After the Finance Committee vote on October 15, negotiations turned to moderate Democrats. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid focused on satisfying centrists. The holdouts came down to Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, an independent who caucused with Democrats, and conservative Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson. Lieberman's demand that the bill not include a public option[161][175] was met,[176]
> But I never said that the Democrats were supposed to fix it on their own. I said both parties are to blame.
This doesn’t make any sense, because 99% of Dems have tried to increase access to healthcare, and 99.9% of Repubs have tried to reduce access to healthcare. The sole exception being when McCain provided his vote to not repeal ACA.
> This doesn’t make any sense, because 99% of Dems have tried to increase access to healthcare, and 99.9% of Repubs have tried to reduce access to healthcare.
This is the problem. All conversations about policy lead to "it's the Republicans fault" or "it's the Democrats fault", never about the actual substance of the issue or any attempts to fix the underlying problems.
The fact that both parties think they're "winning the game" right now by shutting down the government is a joke.
I did point out the actual substance of the issue, Repubs don’t want to expand access to healthcare as it would require a wealth transfer, hence they have opposed all efforts.
The Dems (by and large) bring up bills to provide paid parental leave, increase minimum salaries for overtime exempt workers, fund education, increase access to healthcare, and here you are saying they don’t focus on the substance of the actual issues, whatever that means. Meanwhile, the only thing Repubs have done is cut taxes, and block all those efforts.
> The fact that both parties think they're "winning the game" right now by shutting down the government is a joke.
The fact that you would even bring up both parties when one has control of all 3 branches of government is a joke.
reply