I use shopee and find the reviews fair. Like everything else, you have to learn how to take the most out of a limited system.
My experience so far has been good. Negative reviews seem fair, and give a good indication of what to expect (maybe I've lowered my expectations from the start).
I have the same relation with Kanata. I've grown so dependent on it that it's the first thing I have to set up on a new install.
Thanks to it, I'm using a Miryoku with Colemak-dh layout over a Razer Mechanical keyboard. I even removed the extra keys from it, which makes the keyboard a sight to see.¹
But Kanata is the real star in this show, making all the magic happen.
It's so flexible and configurable that through its blessings I've finally gone completely mouseless. I just keep my hands steady on the keyboard and my thoughts get converted to whatever action I need on screen. The humanities writer dream!
I have great respect for jtroo for creating this software. It's a perfect example of how well designed software allows to go beyond the seeming physical constraints imposed by hardware.
1. That's also why I need it so badly on a new install...
I think this "refusal to answer" thing is so overblown. I have been using this technology every day for over two years now and have not one single time run into this.
You might be right. From my experience, it depends. The edgier your exploration, the more that can happen.
It's important to note that not everyone abide by the same morals. And a narrowly constrained model may end up refusing genuine inquiries just because.
In any case, if anything, this is a small 'but'. OP's point is the gold nugget here. That is, LLMs allowing exploring subjects without the fear of being judged for one's natural curiosity.
Yeah, I'm in no way claiming that this isn't a thing, or even that it isn't a problem.
But it isn't a problem for most people. The kind of edgelords that run into this are overrepresented on internet forums, including HN, but it's actually a pretty small group of people.
Thanks. Good to know. I've been learning quarto for the past 3 weeks and I'm amazed how flexible it is. Knowing it'll support typst makes it even flexibler.
Thanks for the recommendation. I can read French, and that seems an interesting read.
However, there's already an English translation of that book. It's published under the ttitle _Civilization: How we All Became American_, and was translated by David Fernbach.
Anyway, thanks again for pointing out this book. I'll be looking into it thanks to your suggestion.
Such a big statement about someone who we know so little about.
But regardless of that, judging from the available works alone that is simply not true. Cases in point: Meno, the slave boy moment; the whole education project from the Republic.
I know this is the article's title, and that this may sound as a tangent, but whoever destroyed the cave drawings were definitely not Vandals:
> The Vandals were a Germanic people who first inhabited what is now southern Poland. They established Vandal kingdoms on the Iberian Peninsula, Mediterranean islands, and North Africa in the fifth century.
I really want to thank you for your reply. You took the time to point me to what you think is the right direction, i.e., the current meaning of the word.
However, I know I didn't mention this before, but my point was more subtle, even to me at the time as I was not totally aware on why I even bothered to point out the origin of the word.
Today, looking at your reply, I had it more clear. Here we have an article telling us about a terrible thing, that is, the destruction of an unrecoverable piece of history. And in that same article, the writer engages in a language that is just the result of a prejudice against an old group of people, namely the Vandals.
Why are the Vandals vandals? Because they destroyed parts of the Roman empire. So the Romans and their ways stand for what is considered correct, civilized, the apex of civilization, while all other peoples including the Vandals are not. The Vandals vandalize in the sense that they go against the established order.
But hidden in this assumption is the very idea that Romans acted differently from the Vandals. That they, when they imposed themselves on others, were somewhat more polished, more sophisticated. They were not. They vandalized, or should I say _romanized_, the Vandals and all other peoples around them.
So by using this language, even when we are not thinking about it, we end up perpetuating these hidden assumptions. The same could be said about using other words, but this word in particular made me feel this way when I read the article.
Anyway, thanks again for your comment. If I wasn't aware of the new meaning of the word, your comment would definitely improve my understanding. Unfortunately, I was just too obscure to really get my point across at the time.
. Growing up in Portugal, and learning about the Vandals in school, gave me a kind of feeling of relating more closely to that group. Partly because of this, they are not just historic trivia. I feel somewhat connected to them, though this may not be a real biological connection. I hope you get the gist of it.
> So by using this language, even when we are not thinking about it, we end up perpetuating these hidden assumptions.
It's definitely interesting to learn about the history behind the words we use. However words like these have long since lost their original meaning. I fail to see how it can perpetuate an assumption about the Vandals if most people don't even realize the word was originally referring to a group of people. Too much emphasis is placed these days on the words we use rather than the idea we're attempting to get across.
I understand that you feel a personal connection with the Vandals. But you can take comfort in the fact that nobody who uses that word in its current meaning is speaking ill of the Vandals as a people. And it gives you an opportunity to educate people about the history behind that word and the important lesson about hubris that we should learn from it. Because despite the negative connentation the word now has, wouldn't erasing the word from our language be another step towards forgetting about the Vandals and their history?
I feel I'm getting entangled in a discussion I'm not really a part of. I'm not a prescriptivist, I don't really care that much about the direction most of the language takes. I know it's alive; it has its own ways; it will change continuously despite all the efforts some may put behind keeping it in this or that way.
My point was just that it's a bit sad how what was nothing more than a prejudice, and an very biased one, got 'normalized' without us even being aware of it now.
And yes, your point is pretty valid.
> But you can take comfort in the fact that nobody who uses that word in its current meaning is speaking ill of the Vandals as a people.
That being quite true, that also shows how we are not really paying attention how language has been shaped by ideologies/prejudices/biases. In a way, it's also comforting to know that despite the way ideologues/those with prejudice try to shape our minds, all that gets silenced in the long run. Language has a life of its own.
> Because despite the negative connentation the word now has, wouldn't erasing the word from our language be another step towards forgetting about the Vandals and their history?
Well, one thing's for sure: no Vandal will feel vandalized by the historical vandalism of calling someone a vandal. May they all rest in peace.
Once again, thanks a lot for engaging. Your comments have been insightful. I really appreciate that.
But then on the other hand if you talk about cave drawings, historians aren't terribly far out of scope.
My reading of the headline went roughly like this: "Vandals destroy(ed) [..] cave drawings [oh, must have been a very interesting new archaeological approach if they could identify the the culture responsible for destruction] in Austra..[What?? How did they get th--oh, right]"
My experience so far has been good. Negative reviews seem fair, and give a good indication of what to expect (maybe I've lowered my expectations from the start).