Linguistic lineages are not the same as genetic lineages. Populations can switch languages, or die out completely while their language lives on. And in this case, genetic studies show no clear genetic relationship between the Celtic-speaking regions - the Cornish are mostly English, for instance.
Hence, objects; keep alternating between functional (stateless) and imperative (stateful) as you ascend the abstraction tower, so that the hairiness does not leak between layers and hence accumulate.
I have never understood how it is that "Ollama" manages to stay some sort of de-facto standard local hosting solution when all it does is wrap llama.cpp poorly. It's not as if llama.cpp is hard to use - it offers pre-compiled single file binaries! It implements every extant endpoint format! It has a web interface! What more could you ask for? Yet everything from agentic frameworks to vibe coded chat apps offer configurations for a variety of proprietary cloud providers, plus "Ollama". Never "llama.cpp". Why?
"Most "LLM in Emacs" packages make Emacs a mouth that talks to a model: you type, it replies into a buffer. El Yayster inverts that. It makes Emacs a body the model inhabits — the agent perceives your live environment, and acts on it through gated Emacs Lisp."
Your three examples in the README.md file help. If you have the time, please add more examples and more example use cases. Sorry to sound lazy, I started reading the code in yayster.el, then stopped, wanting more docs. I wrote an Emacs based coding harness earlier this year, so your ‘opposite direction’ idea is interesting.
Yikes, thanks for letting me know. That seems like a clbuttic case of buttumptions - Of course the text is indeed AI-generated, but it's being quoted! We shall all have to get used to AI-assisted summaries of software, I'm afraid...
Anyway, I'm trying this package out now. So far it works as advertised - a natural language interface to Emacs. Pretty cool...
Not true by any stretch, though parent didn't mention any competitor
MacOS's current Finder dates from 2001. Earlier versions of "Finder" were a completely different piece of software - different code, different interface, different UI metaphor. File manager software predating it:
Windows Explorer
GNOME/Nautilus
KDE/Konqueror
X11/xfm (X File Manager)
sundry proprietary Unix workstations
All of the above interfaces share the same interface lineage as Mac OS, lying as they all do downstream of Xerox PARC. And all have converged on the same interface principles - visible path, a button to ascend to the parent directory, etc.
Everyone who comes to Finder from anywhere else complains. Finder is weird for the sake of being weird.
We’re talking about the UI here, not the binary executable. Finder was extensively reworked in 2001 from the file manager in NeXT to be much closer to the original Finder, and most of the complaints here are about UI decisions taken from the original Finder, released in 1984. That predates Windows (not just Windows Explorer, which is from ten years later), Nautilus (created by Andy Hertzfeld of the original Mac team to be like Finder!), and the Unix variants, even the venerable xfm, which dates from the early 1990s.
The PARC interface (by which I guess you mean the Xerox Star) had significant differences, and I think would confuse any modern computer user far worse than the Finder. The Lisa was closer to the Star but the Mac used a simplified model that just equated files to icons.
Source: I lived through this process and used all of these for actual work at some point. The Finder’s influence on GUI file management was rather like the iPhone’s influence on phone management.
> Finder was extensively reworked in 2001 from the file manager in NeXT to be much closer to the original Finder, and most of the complaints here are about UI decisions taken from the original Finder, released in 1984.
Why would they ignore all the lessons learned between 1984 and 2001?
That's the reason why most people complain about Finder today.
Is a "truly intelligent home" something I should want? None of the current generation of "smart" addons are true value adds - their entire purpose is data collection. The pretext is always absurdly thin. I just thought "I bet there's a wifi enabled microwave", googled it, and indeed, Samsung have released such a thing - you can control it with your voice! Wow! Never mind that you can't un/load food with your voice, or that you're never more than 10 feet from it in the kitchen anyway. Oh but there's an app. Of course there's an app. It "suggests recipes". Right.
I think hoping for a locally hosted "smart" home is backwards. They have no other function than to invade your space. "Smart" objects are agents, and they don't work for you.
That's a very long-ass way of saying "I disagree with this comment, I can't be bothered explaining why (too much work), so instead I think this user should be banned". I extracted nothing useful from your comment, which bears no relation to its parents that I can discern, am irritated to have spent time reading it and composing this reply, and also find your attitude pretty rich when you're also an anon account, and with less karma too. If you want to "call someone out" you've gotta be on damn solid ground and bring receipts. As it is you've just decreased the signal/noise ratio of the thread and contributed to a toxic atmosphere. I would just flag and move on but in this case I think feedback is important, and unlike you I can be bothered to explain what it is that's got me riled up.
This is what I'd call the "enabler" archetype that gets unhappy about friction (rightfully!) but takes some.. uh.. mental shortcuts when it comes to tracing back the source of it.
I'm sorry man. The problem is that this exact described dynamic (see also the other reply by me which you seem to have conveniently missed), is that it affects _all_ internet spaces and makes them utterly miserable.
I agree though that this meta stuff doesn't exactly improve SNR, and I am open for better solutions. But those need to actually solve the problem, instead of just silencing the immune response.
___
Interesting side-thought
> with less karma too
I think this might point at (one of the) root cause(s) of the dysfunction I'm pointing at here.
Internet points ceased to be a metric documenting value quite a while ago. Something something Goodhart
Gonna make this real short and simple: it's totally unclear what you're on about. You've described nothing, merely complained, infuriatingly, in the vaguest possible terms.
Don't take this as dismissive or a dunk or anything like that, but maybe an LLM can help with unpacking?
At least I know that they understand my writing and that they can help me understand other writing I don't.
I can assure you that there is a point. Whether it is worth bothering is of course your decision.
I'd wager probably not, but I guess that depends. No hard feelings either way.
Some screens are like that, but it's not an inherent property of all visual displays.
For example, you'll see a sort of barber-pole effect when pointing a video camera at a raster-scan digital display whose refresh rate isn't synced to the camera's frame rate. To avoid that, sync them, or maybe use a colour e-ink display.
Alternatively, print a high-resolution version with a decent photograph printer and take a picture of the print with the C2PA camera.
reply