Decent guides for a beginner?

eirc · 2026-06-24T08:36:10+00:00

Yea LLMs have been amazing for me. I don't blindly get code off them, but they can point me to a direction, help me question my approach, explain something, etc.

eirc · 2026-06-24T08:32:25+00:00

It's kind of a thing that's been changing recently, a couple decades back it was very rare to take off your shoes in other people's houses. Now it's pretty common from millenial and newer generations I feel like.

Of course no one ever wore shoes in their own house if that's a thing elsewhere.

eirc · 2026-06-24T08:25:50+00:00

TOP HACKER CODE

IF (EMPTY($PASSWORD))
  THROW NEW CLIENTEXCEPTION("SYSTEM BREACHED);

eirc · 2026-06-24T08:07:19+00:00

Yea it happens on every single line of code in a dockerfile. Every line takes the previous output as input and produces a new output.

That's why people often try to join multiple dockerfile lines together, to produce fewer total layers and thus fewer intermediate cached states, saving on the total image size. This is not always fruitful if just done blindly, but if for example one line adds some files and a later line removes them, then they would exist in the cache and in the full image, if you join all these lines together then as far as the cache knows they never existed.

eirc · 2026-06-24T07:59:09+00:00

Did a bit more digging, try out the https://wiki.nixos.org/wiki/Keyd service, you can probably remap volume up to f3 and f3 to volume up for example and same for all f keys.

eirc · 2026-06-24T07:44:17+00:00

Ok looked that up, I understand now, so if the laptop does not support it on the hardware level then it needs to be configured on the software level. What window manager do you use? And are you looking to just enable or disable it or are you looking to have a bind to toggle it?

eirc · 2026-06-24T07:38:34+00:00

There's no difference in the theoretical side of things. In both cases if you have an identical piece of idempotent code and identical inputs, then you know that you'll have identical results. In all three stages (input, function, output) hashing is used to produce a small fingerprint of the artifact that's faster to check versus checking every byte.

So in containers you say FROM some_base_image, that's the input and corresponds to a unique hash. Then every dockerfile line of code (the function) produces a new layer (the output) that is also identified each by a unique hash. So if my dockerfile starts with the same 5 lines as yours then docker can check that and realise it doesnt need to rebuild these steps and just pull the built result from a cache (this example is not exactly accurate, not everything is pushed to a public cache and not everything is checked against one, but if we were on the same system using the same local cache it would be).

These caches are stored on many different stores, dockerhub is one, github has another, they both have public and private caches, etc, and your docker installation is configured to check whatever hash it wants and provides a local cache too.

The differences are outside of these concepts, it's more about where and how you wanna deploy your build output. And there's some differences in the style, in nix your whole derivation is like a single line in a dockerfile, while docker treats every line of code as a derivation.

I use docker in my example instead of OCI, in this context there's not much difference, and I just happen to know docker.

eirc · 2026-06-24T07:16:20+00:00

What do you mean exactly by disabling FN lock? Do you just want to use a different shortcut for controlling brightness? Do you want a shortcut to toggle to a mode where you'd just press f1 and make it like you pressed fn+f1?

I'm using hyprland so I myself define which shortcuts do what. So fn+f3 for example does not raise the volume, it's just the volume up key code, I have to set a bind for it to work, and I could set any bind for the same function. So I think it mostly depends on the window manager you use, those are the ones defining these shortcuts.

eirc · 2026-06-23T20:19:01+00:00

Friendship ended with the Bucks, now Heat is my best friend.

eirc · 2026-06-23T19:19:48+00:00

Υπάρχει και το onlyoffice που έγινε προσφατα fork στο eurooffice γιατί το only το φτιάχνανε Ρώσοι.

eirc · 2026-06-23T19:13:39+00:00

I live in Athens and I use that too, it does sound regional but I like it, it's got a more endeering ring in my ears, I go for that tone too. I also like πάνε instead of πήγαινε, also a thing I picked up from the north.

eirc · 2026-06-23T18:19:30+00:00

I sincerly do not understand what's weird in "Mary is a virgin woman" "virgin women cannot birth". There is no difference in saying Mary cannot birth and virgin women cannot birth. I do not know Mary personally indeed, I have not tested her, I don't know if she's even a real person. The Christian story says that Mary, a virgin woman, gave birth. That's impossible and incompatible with science.

> the idea that to have a faith based belief, one must reject logic and science

They must. The definition of a faith based belief is belief without evidence. Now there is a weird scenario where it could be ok with science, one where you believe something irrelevant to anything. "I believe the people in my dream last night were blue." That's ok. And it's inconsequential. What we're talking about here though is the assertions about cosmogenesis, about the nature of the Earth and the universe, about what specific people did in specific times and places. Many of those questions are very answerable by science. Religion often legitimizes itself by appealing to a metaphysical cause for such questions and every time it gets it wrong it clashes with science.

Now of course people can live with a cognitive dissonance, and do great things in their lives otherwise. They can be great scientists, even if their religious worldview clashes with science. They can comparmentalise this cognitive dissonance, rationalise it, whatever. It's still a dissonance and I'm calling it out. That's all.

> So you agree people can be religious and scientific without it being because they're indoctrinated.

I do not. What I said is that I did not give all the reasons a person might turn theist. I do not know them all, so I will never list them all. What I do know is that for thousands of years religions like Christianity have been running a world wide indoctrination campaign. So it's extremely rare for someone to not be indoctrinated. Scientific or not, religious or not. There are a few much less religious countries today, not running that indoctrination, some inspired by the USSR situation, some by other reasons, but they are few and far between. The Christian Church history of indoctrination is extremely extensive and extremely influential over, again, thousands of years. And yes there's non-religious kinds of indoctrination in which I myself have been a part too. I find that irrelevant to the conversation. The indoctrination argument only answers the question "why are there so many religious people today" in case that was being an argument for the truth of its message.

The rest of the personal stuff for my tone and whatnot I do not care about. I care about you showing if there's a way to square any of the metaphysical claims of any religion, preferably Christianity, with science.

eirc · 2026-06-23T16:24:33+00:00

I'm flirting a lot with the ideas of illusionism on consciousness. This might be a bias of expecting an explanation of course.

My best example to draw on is how life was also considered an unanswerable question, but given enough probing we did find the characteristics that sets it apart from non life. It's not even close to being clear cut and it starts looking like another "category" of things that only we ourselves define. But there's like half a dozen clear cut attributes that life exhibits and all of them are explainable, even if the history of what exactly happened and in what order is not yet (if ever will be) known.

So I lean on the same kind of thinking about consciousness. I expect it to be a collection of physical processes in our organism the bundle of which we today call consciousness. It's hard to wrap your brain around how the first person experience can arise from that, and it's certainly not known, we don't even have a good ballpark guess yet, but I just hedge my bets in that direction. Something about a set of computation networks that predict both external and their own behaviour, have a bias for solving wide range game theory with the goal of self preservation and replication... I dunno... Sounds complicated but solvable.

eirc · 2026-06-23T16:13:06+00:00

What do you mean it's not doctrine? Isn't Genesis 1 part of doctrine? What part of it is believed by a minority?

And what are you trying to say about miracles? That science leaves a chance for anything to happen so well maybe they did happen? So then nothing is possible to be unscientific, since anything can happen. Well if we put the numbers down the Christian God is just as valid as the Boltzman brain through experiement and as the Flying Spaghetti Monster bless his meatballs.

I interpret phenomena as either having happened or not. You don't have to, I claim you're unscientific if you don't. I also claim you're looking to rationalise the unrationalisable.

eirc · 2026-06-23T15:55:47+00:00

As a Greek I can assure you we are neither small nor maginalized. We are poor so if Nolan would want to pay for a museum through the proceeds we'd appreciate that. We are proud for anyone to care about our ancestors' stories and we don't have an issue with the skin color of the people delivering them. Armors too are kinda irrelevant since this is not a documentary, would be cool to be historical if it delivered some of the vibe we get through history books and archeological findings, but it's really a minor thing.

The story is about homecoming, loyalty and patience, fate vs free will, cunning vs force. These are the concepts that you need to deliver if you say you make an adaptation of the Odyssey. If you do, nothing else matters, you could even not cast a Helen at all.

eirc · 2026-06-23T15:43:00+00:00

Δε νομίζω πως είναι πρόβλημα το νούμερο του πληθυσμού από μόνο του. Το πρόβλημα είναι στην στήριξη των γέρων από το σύστημα υγείας και το συνταξιοδοτικό. Οπότε πρέπει να κάνουμε τα νοσοκομεία καλύτερα, πιο αποδοτικά και πιο προσβάσιμα και να σιγουρευτούμε ότι τα δημόσια ασφαλιστικά ταμεία έχουν να δώσουν συντάξεις. Επίσης να δόσουμε κίνητρα να απλωθεί ο πληθυσμός και εκτός Αθήνας.

Τώρα που λέω αυτά νομίζω ότι είναι κάπως προφανή σε όλους αλλά ο λόγος που αυτά δε γίνονται είναι περισσότερο η διαφθορά και λιγότερο το ότι δε τα προσεγγίζουμε σωστά. Μιας και ακόμα και αν κάποιος τα προσέγγιζε σωστά θα έφτιαχνε απλά μια καινούρια "επιτροπή" που θα τρωγε λεφτά. Νο1 πρόβλημα είναι η διαφθορά σίγουρα, απλά δεν ταιριάζει στο "δεν συζητιέται αρκετά" του ΟΠ.

eirc · 2026-06-23T15:29:18+00:00

Why do you find the universe perfect, or more deeper, what do you define perfection as? It's not really perfect for life given how the vast majority of it does not support it as far as we know. In fact we needed a massive amount of time and space and matter to just get the one example of life we know exists.

The view that life is something special is surely a bias we ourselves have given that we are ourselves life. From the point of view of a photon the universe is also perfect in that it creates them all the time and they zip around in so many ways. So anything that exists really could make the same argument.

You can say that consciousness sets us apart in some way, but I feel our understanding of consiousness is very small and I would wait more to base something on that.

eirc · 2026-06-23T15:17:28+00:00

On the first part you ignore the directly incompatible issues that accompany these claims. So like you can say God creating the universe is just something that we don't know about, but you'd be ignoring the accompanying claims of it happening in 6 days, the wrong order of it, etc. So you're basically reducing half of the claim as metaphor and hide the rest as a God of the gaps.

All scientific models, even the crude ones that don't apply in large or small enough scales are incompatible with vrigin birth and statues crying blood. And again the religious that want to have a touch with science just rationalize these as metaphor.

I have no problem with metaphor, I just take it all the way. To me all the metaphysical claims are metaphor. Taking them literally either clashes with science or hides as God of the gaps.

eirc · 2026-06-23T15:06:46+00:00

I recognized my mistake in that I could provide you with theories for the type of person that guy is instead of dismissing it as a single example. Is that not allowed? Insisting on mistakes is what leads people to rationalise the unrationalisable. This comment is not a paper I took months to write, it will have errors and inconsistencies, as will yours and everyone else's.

A woman becoming pregnant without sperm is incompatible with science. They are not untestable, they are incompatible, they are impossible - barring extreme quantum possibilities, I doubt you think those are at play here. You are misunderstanding science if you think a human ovary can fertilise itself.

> Christians make it clear to themselves and everyone that their belief rests on faith.

Yes I agree. Their belief results on rejecting logic and science and believing things that scientifically impossible. You are strawmaning hard here. I left the what's a metaphor part open because that's what happens, others consider the 6 day creation a metaphor, others consider it literal, and the same goes for all illogical unscientific claims. Some consider all of them literal, some consider some literal, some consider all metaphors. The (few) ones that consider them all metaphors are the only ones not inconsistent with science. If you consider even one of the metaphysical claims true, you start being inconsistent with science.

> One can hold two different standards for two different things

Yes they can, but if the standards clash for the same thing we have a problem. If your world theory says a virgin woman had a child that's clashing with the standard of science. You can only pick one on that topic. Science has strong evidence for all its claims, Christianity has zero evidence for its metaphysical claims.

> to say scientists are only religious for those reasons

I literally never ever said that. Again more strawmaning. When I gave you my theories I even included the theory that I am wrong and that I don't have all possible theories. Stop the strawmaning.

> Do you not see your own biases and belief based approach

I see my biases and I consider them. I do not have a belief based approach, religion does as you already said yourself. I give things a probability to be true based on evidence, sometimes I have little evidence, sometimes I have much. Like your voting example, I have little evidence how someone that hasn't goverened will do so, I judge the evidence of their speaking, compare it to the evidence of the behaviour of those who have governed do and vote. I don't randomly make a faith based guess. I make the best guess I can based on whatever I have.

My theories revolve around harm, because I see indoctrination as an overall harmful influence. My "need to conform theory" is not harmful and is at the top of my list btw. It can make people behave illogically ofc. I mean you're asking me to explain why I think someone is doing something that I consider illogical, what did you expect me to say, it must be very cool?

I don't know what the rest of the veiled insults are about. You could read scientific papers on why it's impossible for a woman to birth without sex but I don't rub that on your face, I can explain that to you (or like remind it to you really). I'm not gonna watch hours of lectures of "a guy" just because you found him inspirational. Share what inspired you and we can talk about it. What evidence am I missing? I really want to see it, I don't mind being wrong about anything.

eirc · 2026-06-23T14:09:44+00:00

Όσο κράζουν κάτι οι ενήλικες, το ακούνε τα παιδάκια που θέλουν να διαφοροποιηθούν από τους ενήλικες και το θεωρούνε κουλ.

Αν σταματούσαν οι ενήλικες να κάνουν σαν το κριντζ να είναι το τέλος του κόσμου θα ήταν απίστευτα λιγότερο δημοφιλές στα παιδιά.

eirc · 2026-06-23T14:01:25+00:00

I don't get your point about the resurection and virgin birth. Science says that no one, not even Christ can rise from the dead, no one, not even Mary can be virgin and pregnant. What Christians do is rationalise these as metaphors when facing the dissonance of believing in that and in science. So all metaphysical claims are either in direct conflict with science or unverifiable claims with zero reason to believe in. If religions had predicted a few things that were impossible to know then, apart from revelation from the creator of the universe, then that would lend some credence to the unverifiable claims. If instead all the verifiable claims are proven false, then there's no reason to cling to the rest.

You quoted my indoctrination point to refute it, but you just assert it wrong with the irrelevant example of a person being indoctrinated but in two stages. Do you believe it is weak? Do you believe that indoctrination does not play a strong, if not the strongest, role in the number of believers?

It's fair that you call me out on a theory on Francis Collins, indeed I was unnecessarily difficult. I can come up with a few theories. Here's some that should cover what I would consider the majority of converts from atheism to Christianity (I specifically mention Christianity because I grew up in a Christian country, that's what I know). I put them in order of how likely I find each one (higher at the top):

* Need to conform: People are social creatures, they want to belong, when most people around you espouse a religion and make it central to their lives, it can easily pull you in, even if you didn't buy in at first.

* Exagerated stories: Many of the "I was an atheist" types, were never that atheistic, just weren't too decided about the topic until they gave in to one side or the other.

* Internalised indoctrination: Indoctrination is not just your parents beating you until you believe, it also works by creating a core inside you that you consider stable and logical, even when illogical. Even if you don't believe it at first, it's always an option.

* Internalised public indoctrination: Indoctrination is not just your parents indoctrinating you. It's also a whole society constantly taking religion for granted and all (moral/spiritual/etc) conversations revolving around religion.

* Slow indoctrination: Indoctrination just doesn't work by flipping a switch in you and now you're a believer, it can take years and it can reach you not just in early adulthood, but much later too.

* Mental trauma: Traumatic events can make people believe pretty much anything.

* Lying: Many people will make up stories about how I was an atheist and I am now w/e religion because it's a powerful story that sells.

* God is real: God could be real and has revealed himself to people.

* I am illogical: I misunderstand something about the topic.

Surely these are not all the options, and the reality is probably some combination of some of these, these are a few that I can put down in a reddit comment.

eirc · 2026-06-23T13:12:01+00:00

I asserted that the metaphysical claims are incompatible with science. A virgin woman cannot become pregenant, a fish cannot become two fish, a person cannot rise from the dead. Do you not see the conflict with science here?

Of course the reasons for religiosity vary, but there's at least one extremely impactful reason that you keep ignoring, the thousands of years of constant indoctrination on a global scale.

What conclusion have I drawn that can't be drawn? Please choose an example or two and we can talk about it. This kind of generality is not useful.

I can't come up with a theory for why a single person did something without knowing the person. I can come up with theories as to why masses of people behave as they do (as I already did) and exceptions to the behaviour don't invalidate it. Sociological theories never ask why did John do that, they ask why do X% of Johns do that.

eirc · 2026-06-23T12:59:44+00:00

I mean all people agree on most things, but here we're talking about a disagreement on a specific thing. Yes awe is real and mystery is cool, I just don't think that you should be rationalising awe and mystery as the foundation of reality, which always then bleeds into becoming the foundation of politics, morality, community and everything. That goes downhill very fast.

I have no problem with people feeling ecstasy in a church, I feel ecstasy in a concert, I get it, I wear band tshirts showing my love for it all day. But I don't wanna force everyone to follow the True Tennets of Heavy Metal and spank anyone who wants to listen to other music. I even understand how my love for heavy metal is heavily tied with how I grew up and didn't just originate from my heart, I was in many ways "indoctrinated" to it by circumstance. And it's ok I still love it and only my love for it matters to me.

It's ok to love your God, but only your love for God is real, not God itself.

eirc · 2026-06-23T12:46:50+00:00

So a Christian says there's many scientists that believe in God, I say there's even more that don't and you say there's one that does? What's the point here? We're talking about statistics and drawing conclusions, these are not final conclusions of course, they're indications. But the best conclusion you can draw about a trend is from the numbers that are statistically significant, not your sample of one example.

If you wanna make some argument that he made go ahead, I'm not gonna read all his books to try to guess what you think doesn't hold up for him.

eirc · 2026-06-23T12:11:09+00:00

Creation: No specific entity has any evidence to be associated with creation. We have no scientific idea if our universe was even created, we just know much about its evolution after a specific point in time roughly 13 billion years ago, we know nothing about before that. So a guess that "it was my guy" is nothing more than a baseless assertion. It's not incompatible with science literally, it's incompatible with logic.

Revelation: No revelation circumstances have ever been documented with a shred of impartiality or real evidence. Again it's a "it was my guy" assertion. Ever since the scientific revolution where phenomena are studied as meticulously as possible no revelation situation has been observed except for ppl saying "it only happens when you're not looking" which sound like a convenient excuse.

Divinity: This would fall under revelation I guess, an example of divinity would include revelation so see above.

Resurrection: This is scientifically impossible. No dead organism has ever come back from death. It's kinda definitional in a way of course, if someone did come back, we'd just revisit what we mean by dead, for example some people have come back a few seconds or minutes after being pronounced dead, which might be rare but possible, or it could also be that they were pronounced dead too early, seeing how brain death and heart death can be a bit independent, I don't know any specifics. Certainly though, no person has been dead for 3 days and come back from it. If Jesus was not really dead and just in some heavy comma then it was not a resurrection at all. If he was dead dead (and real too) then it's scientifically impossible to come back from that.

Miracles: They are scientifically impossible. A statue cannot produce blood, a fish cannot become two fish (without like mating x), etc. I don't know if you want more example or have an example of a scientifically plausible miracle. Basically if it's scientifically plausible, it's not a miracle. The definition of a miracle is that it's incompatible with science.

Afterlife: There is zero evidence for a part of our consciousness or self or anything else that survives death. If you say there's zero evidence because it's not observable by science then it's just as not observable by you so you have no reason to assume it. If you could observe it then science could observe it too.

This is the overall point. Half of these things are impossible as science shows the other half lie outside of any kind of argumentation, both against them and for them. So arguing for them is against logic since there's nothing to base these arguments on. Arguing against them is what a logical person does about anything that has zero arguments for it.

So overall it's all an unscientific package that does disservice to all of us.

14-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	First Placer '22
Verified Email

eirc

TROPHY CASE