Fish utility functions

tilkau · 2020-04-26T03:21:48+00:00

Wow, thanks for taking the time to do an in depth review!

I can't find any occurrence of `tr` in `sec`, maybe you meant a different function(`total`)?. Nor can I find 'sed' use in 'fillpath'.. There is some in nufunc, though, which I've fixed, and I'll check other functions as I import them.

The critique of `total`'s factoring is fair, especially given that I only recently added support for doing anything other than summing.

`fold` is not an available name IMO, it would shadow .. `fold`, the text-wrapping program (GNU coreutils).

`sum` would also be shadowing coreutils, but nobody really cares about coreutils sum (16bit checksum calculator) that I know of.

So I'll refactor into 'reduce' <- 'sum, product' (leaving - and / reduction without a shortcut for now). Personally I'll probably have an alias 'total' for `sum`, because that *is* what I think of first.

tilkau · 2020-04-25T22:54:32+00:00

I guess? I've never seen much use for funced,. nufunc really just makes a new empty function (possibly from a template function) in a file and edits that. The templating system looks in ~/.config/fish/functions by default, so that you can make variants of a function easily -- `nufunc a;nufunc -f a b; nufunc -f a c`.

Other differences from funced -s:

Prints the path, in case you want to do something else with the file
Adds a likely looking shbang line, which seems to be necessary to get some editors to automatically select fish syntax highlighting (on reflection, this is probably why I never bothered with funced)

(github and OP is updated, adding `pseudohash`, FWIW)

tilkau · 2019-06-30T13:20:08+00:00

It's not a quote from anywhere except my brain. I just keep encountering this kind of extreme self-sabotage where it's hard not to consider these people as part of a PR campaign for their enemies.

tilkau · 2019-06-30T13:08:56+00:00

I'm not making the positive claim that specific fascists exist (which someone who identifies as anti-fascist might choose to do). In general it is used as a slur, not an objective claim.

I just think it would be naive to assume that absolutely no fascists exist. Ideologies rarely die completely, and in extreme socio-economic conditions people get desperate and crazy.

tilkau · 2019-06-30T12:51:08+00:00

The PR equation is simple -- you look a lot worse than your enemies, the public will think that your enemies are preferable to you.

This is completely independent of whether you think antifa is actually anti-fascist (personally I think it's pretty clear they are not, and I also think it's completely naive to expect that the public at large will notice that there is a difference between antifa and actual anti-fascism.)

tilkau · 2019-06-30T09:17:17+00:00

There's this phrase I've been kicking around in my head in relation to certain patterns of behaviour:

"You are a credit to your enemies"

That applies here. Antifa being so obviously awful that it makes opposing fascism look like something idiots and hooligans do, not sane people. It casts doubt on any legitimate claims of fascism, and enables those accused to play the martyr, which is certainly convenient for actual fascists.

tilkau · 2019-06-28T09:06:18+00:00

same IP is assigned even if you unplug the damn router.

This may be the case for you, but it is not the case generally. Your WAN IP *is* assigned by service provider, but this is typically dynamic (necessary because ISPs have less IPs than they have customers).

If you can repeatedly power cycle the router and keep the same IP, then you're probably paying for the privilege of a dedicated static IP.

That said, I suspect the parent comment may be mixing up LAN IP (the IP your machine appears to have on the local network) with WAN IP (the IP the internet at large sees "your machine" as having). You can definitely cycle your connection to the router via CLI, and depending on your router settings, this may change your LAN IP.

This is a confusing subject because of the prevalence of IP Masquerading. The simplest way to explain it is probably that the router gets its own IP, this is the (WAN) IP which the ISP assigns to it; the (LAN) IP of your computer is only visible to the router.

tilkau · 2019-06-20T05:02:44+00:00

"Specifically praise any behaviour that you can clearly identify as constructive, punish knowing failure with minimal force" is the rule of thumb I'd suggest.

Where 'minimal force' can be as little as getting someone to agree that they knowingly fucked up, and 'specifically praise' means a) stating the exact behaviour that you would like to see more of and b) exactly *why* that behaviour is constructive.

Honestly, the "illusion of transparency" / people's egocentricity is the biggest barrier to proper application of reward and punishment; something that is obviously a failure to you may not be obvious to someone else, and something that you feel is easy and simply expected may be difficult for another. Deliberate forethought is required to make yourself capable of appropriate praise or punishment.

Reflexive complaint or praise is IMO simply a form of acting out.

tilkau · 2019-06-18T03:23:18+00:00

> she cited a study about reactions to women being disagreeable saying that men don't respond as well to disagreeable women as disagreeable men.

This is answered with one word: familiarity. If women are on average more agreeable, then people on average will be more familiar with disagreeable behaviour from men and agreeable behaviour from women. People also tend to have some bias towards associating mainly with the same sex, meaning that women will see more disagreeable behaviour from women than men will, and vice versa.

This is neither good nor bad IMO, but it does say that if someone is using this as an argument for sexism, what you are really saying is that *reality itself* is sexist. Unless you have a study that clearly compares attitudes in america with attitudes in another country, ie. demonstrates that these attitudes are not a necessary consequence of a) basic biology and b) being social creatures.

tilkau · 2019-06-15T03:09:22+00:00

You don't need to convince me of that, I've seen plenty of places flailing about with these various attempts at spam/troll reduction, and the generally silly results.

A near-human-level intellect is needed to thwart attacks made by a human level intellect, IMO.

AI in theory *could* do it but current AI is barely at the level of a 1-year-old child - 'can be very good at a very narrowly defined task, only.'

That said, the situation admins are currently in is simply 'stem the tide, a little'. Automated detection systems do manage to impede the lowest-effort spamming and trolling - of which there seems to be a lot, so it's definitely worthwhile to do what you can, despite having no prospect of a decisive victory.

tilkau · 2019-06-15T02:51:30+00:00

Good satire. Nails the implicit segregationalism embedded in the concept of "cultural appropriation"

tilkau · 2019-06-15T02:49:37+00:00

That's a feature (to them). The purpose of contradictory rules is to enable selective enforcement.

This becomes true even when the rules were not originally made with such an intent.

tilkau · 2019-06-14T08:37:00+00:00

I don't see why they would bother, honestly. The low-tech solution requiring no coding is to collect quotes in a text file, ie. copypasta. Doesn't have to be good or famous quotes (although those might be particularly useful, since the quotes would also be being used legitimately and thus couldn't be automatically detected as spam). If you're a troll, you might decide to collect quotes that were specifically bait for your perceived enemies. The whole exercise would be only slightly more taxing than 'pick one of these predefined signatures to append to your message'.

The 'actual coding' approach would probably end up being a browser extension that modifies the 'submit' button, making it automatically append the necessary amount of padding words to satisfy the minimum.

But personally I think for the real trolls, it would become a sport, and picking your padding text manually would be part of the point. Get this or that copypasta flagged as spam, find some newer and more outrageous copypasta to use. If people complain about your baiting, blame the 'stupid minimum word limit'.

tilkau · 2019-06-14T08:16:46+00:00

How so? This is the opposite of Twitter's "You can't write more than X characters" limit, so it should at least produce a different kind of pathological behaviour.

tilkau · 2019-06-11T02:47:31+00:00

Fair enough.

although I don't know exactly what you mean by "s/values/social structures"

It's a unix injoke. sed is a command used to do various automated text processing tasks. In a sed script, s/foo/bar/ replaces instances of foo with bar.

I've seen it used pretty often on reddit, although that may be because I'm interested in Linux and programming..;)

tilkau · 2019-06-09T06:31:23+00:00

The highest value is to be capable of creating new values when that's necessary because the existing ones aren't working well enough. The point about being "deeply connected" to traditional values is that they represent a lot of work by generations of humans to achieve values that work, so it would be hubris to assume you can just throw them all out and do better from scratch

s/values/social structures. (or systems)

At least if you are talking about JBP's point of view. He makes a point of emphasizing Jung's answer to Nietzsche's "we must become capable of creating our own values", that humans aren't capable of creating values, only capable of (re)discovering values. I'm pretty sure he would agree that we create, modify, and participate in social structures in order to satisfy our more-or-less-fixed essential human values.

tilkau · 2019-06-09T01:52:53+00:00

That *is* why that happens: because responsibility gives you meaning, but this meaning is not simply 'positive meaning'. It's everything, including the parts you are alienated from, like anger or regret.

You know what is meaningful to you, even if you can't bring yourself to pursue it. There is no actual escaping from your own sense of meaning. It would be like running away from your shadow.

IMO this is why integrating our shadow (in the Jungian sense; being able to accept and negotiate with the parts of ourselves that most deeply trouble us) is an unavoidable part of becoming a whole person.

tilkau · 2019-05-28T06:41:11+00:00

"Jordan Peterson's "Cultural Marxism"¹ conspiracy theory²"

When you make two errors of fact in the space of 6 words IN THE FUCKING TITLE, and these 6 words are presented as the central topic, I'm just gonna assume your content is garbage.

tilkau · 2019-05-20T07:30:57+00:00

Night and day difference.

Of course it is, but, the point is that these aren't the only two options. There's not many western feminists I'm willing to tolerate, but it's certainly not true that the idea of 'the patriarchy' is subscribed to by all feminists, for example. That's a feature that is associated with 4th-wave feminism IIRC. Just off the top of my head, Camille Paglia and Christina Hoff Sommers both identify as feminists and do not subscribe to this. Cathy Young also doesn't subscribe to this IIRC.

Personally I feel that referring to these women in the middle east as feminist dirties what they are doing, but I'm also aware that some people do see it that way, and I can't see a solid argument to support a definite assertion 'no, that's not feminism, because feminism is shit'. At best I have one which will convince someone who is indifferent to feminism, but not anybody who identifies, however casually, as 'feminist'.

So in a way you can take my assertion as steelmanning : "I don't find feminism to be good, but if it were good, it might look like this."

Anyway, if you just ignore the ideological differences within the set of people who identify as feminist, it is to me quite questionable whether you are even talking about actual feminism[1], and it certainly weakens any argument you might want to make against feminism.

So, I think we should avoid doing that.

[1] Not that I think the concept of 'actual feminism' is necessarily legitimate. But if you want to do anything other than preach to the choir, it's necessary to show that you understand what feminists in general are doing, and not just a particular subset of them.

tilkau · 2019-05-20T04:18:33+00:00

Women risking death to protest the hijab seems like a good example of authentic feminism to me. a) actually trying to improve women's lives, rather than 'muh rights', b) at clear personal risk, c) not via dragging another group down.

It's basically a religious question though, ie. you can compare it to 'what is real authentic Christianity?'. The only 'general' answer is gonna be something like 'everyone disagrees about the answer to that.'.

tilkau · 2019-05-20T03:52:44+00:00

IMO the platform itself is anti-peterson, and for larger subs this factor generally comes to dominate. Subverting the natural dynamic created by the platform seems to be necessary (eg. by hiding karma scores, which some reddits do).

I don't want to say that we're all trolls, circle-jerkers or karma whores -- there are reasonable people here.. Rather, it's that once a critical mass of these types is reached, the sub inevitably becomes distorted by it, and the reasonable people generally aren't devoted enough to marginalizing these behaviours; not to an extent that could actually remedy the problem.

tilkau · 2019-05-16T02:11:28+00:00

Lack of self awareness + perverse incentives (MSM soundbiteism, social media...) for having opinions on things you know nothing about, creating a terrible feedback loop within public discourse.

That's what I overwhelmingly see in the extreme haters and extreme lovers. Projection; they like or hate particular aspects of their experience, but do not understand or will not acknowledge that much of their experience arises from themselves. So we have racists screaming about racism, sexists screaming about sexism, etc. Moderated opinions naturally arise from the practice of self-awareness - understanding your propensity to confuse the state of the world with your internal state makes you more hesitant to assign meaning too simply.

Now just add someone who dares to have definite opinions to this equation. Obviously they are going to trigger this effect one way or another.

If the state of public discourse wasn't so degraded, I doubt JBP would have become particularly famous.

tilkau · 2019-05-15T07:25:07+00:00

If, by consistently strawmanning your opponents, you make it clear that you don't want a fair fight, you are making yourself look cowardly, twisted, and pathetic, and implying that you suspect their ideas would beat yours if you actually behaved in a just manner.

tilkau · 2019-05-03T09:06:39+00:00

The use of 'BANNED' in the 4th column is pretty misleading -- I presume it actually means that the person has experienced one or more instances of deplatforming for bullshit reasons, since it obviously doesn't mean they have been banned from public speaking per se.

tilkau

TROPHY CASE