awk is practically made for record processing, within the shell you can set $IFS. The reason so many ancient UNIX file formats use : as separator is because that’s the default setting of $IFS.

It’s all a huge PITA, though. I mean there’s a reason why people started using perl instead. Nushell is great for that kind of stuff, even more so if you have random json or such lying around it loads just as easily. “Everything is a string” was a mistake.

You quit it just like you quit ed or ex, just that you have to enter the prompt (:) yourself as vi is not by default in prompt mode. And you should know ed, ed is the standard editor.

I use Helix btw.

The Steam store is a nightmare for discovery.

It’s brilliant actually. I mean it’s still arguably a shitshow, but Steam is very good at letting shovelware sink to the bottom of their algorithms.

1000xResist was an indie title that was named GOTY 2024 by a few publications, but they only just crossed 100,000 copies sold about a week ago.

Not bad for a story-focussed adventure.

Sifu sold 3m, Baba is You about half a million. The game may be brilliant, the GOTY award may be perfectly deserved, still ain’t going to play it because it’s not my genre. “Story-focussed adventure” is like a quarter of a step above walking simulator when it comes to ludological complexity I’d rather read a book. That’s of course just me, for the general audience… well, it’s niche.

Also btw young people never drove sales. The reason is simple: They’re broke.

The large initial percentage of female coders was due to computer having been a female job, because secretary was. Their role within companies didn’t change, what changed is that they were using machines to do the computing instead of doing it by hand.

We’re kinda lucky to have the woke trifecta (Ada, Grace, Alan) (first programmer (woman), inventor of compilers (woman), absolute unit (gay)) to keep the chuds at bay. Even if we weren’t all socially inept nerds (or pretending to be so to bosses) there’s only so much you can do, culturally, if the population is growing exponentially. Uncle Bob (yes I know he’s a chud) did the maths at some point IIRC it was something like the number of programmers doubling every two years. Which also means that at any one point in time roughly 2/3rds of programmers have no idea what they’re doing, which explains the javascript ecosystem.

Probably not an article about integer parsing, though. If the docs are that long, then because Microsoft does have a tendency to be overly verbose for things they think you need, just to have no docs for the stuff you actually need.

For reference here’s the relevant rust docs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_astonishment

…and of course JS made it into the examples, how could it not:

A programming language’s standard library usually provides a function similar to the pseudocode ParseInteger(string, radix), which creates a machine-readable integer from a string of human-readable digits. The radix conventionally defaults to 10, meaning the string is interpreted as decimal (base 10). This function usually supports other bases, like binary (base 2) and octal (base 8), but only when they are specified explicitly. In a departure from this convention, JavaScript originally defaulted to base 8 for strings beginning with “0”, causing developer confusion and software bugs. This was discouraged in ECMAScript 3 and dropped in ECMAScript 5.

I was talking about the foundation itself, not foundation+subsidiaries. And yes ever since the writing was on the wall wrt. google funds they’ve been putting more and more money in investments to make sure they can survive, as opposed to grants. Still keeping with the foundation’s mandate, though, e.g. all their VC investments into AI are the polar opposite of what the likes of OpenAI are doing. Kinda sceptical e.g. huggingface will ever turn a profit, much less a significant one, but it’s important to have them.

Firefox is a way for them to make money for their charitable projects. Always has been.

They’ve been opening secondary streams of income – also via Firefox, like pocket and stuff, but it’s unclear whether that would even allow them to keep developing Firefox. It certainly would mean that Mozilla doesn’t have any money left over to give to others which is their main purpose of existing.

If you actually had a look at their actual numbers, they’re a charity you know, they’re public, you’d see that the bulk of money is spent on charity. Mozilla has never been a charity to develop Firefox, Firefox has always been the breadwinner for Mozilla’s charity operations.

The Commission already has an instance and the ECJ also has an instance. I didn’t find one for the parliament, they might not even want to have one but instead leave it to the parties. A parliament instance would amount to the EP president policing parliamentarian’s speech not just inside parliament but also outside of it, kinda iffy.

Only SPJ may use it. It is known.

If you want a really advanced build system there’s shake, which can deal with things like building things that generates dependency information for things that build things. In a nutshell: It’s strictly more powerful than make because (a single invocation of) make operates on a fixed dependency graph while shake can discover dependencies as it goes.

Mostly though you should use whatever comes with the language you’re using, and if you’re doing something simple use make. That includes “link a multi-language project where the components are generated by language-specific systems”. It notably doesn’t include multi-stage compiler builds. GHC switched from recursive make, which is a bad idea, to non-recursive make, which was… arcane, but at least you didn’t have to make clean to get a correct build, to shake. Here’s the build system it’s a whole project to itself.

Would it baffle you to know I might consider this “critique” to be art where the image itself is not? I leave that as an exercise to the reader.

Not in the slightest. Also, how kind of you.

Do I just take your word for it that these critics have nothing to say?

Nah I’m just not into the high-falutin’ stuff myself. At least not in the “write an essay to accompany the work” way. Part of the craft of art, for me, is to actually express stuff in the artwork, and not as a combination of artwork+essay. I very much rather leave the thing open to interpretation, see what happens. That’s entering a dialogue with whoever the audience may be instead of preaching from the pulpit, it’s horizontal, not hierarchical, it does not privilege the perception of the author over that of the audience.

Their sole motivation is salvaging gen AI’s reputation.

Yes and no? My actual stance on gen AI is simple: It’s pretty much like photography. Tons of slop photographs and AI gens exist because it’s so accessible, doesn’t mean you cannot create art using it. Like with photography, using gen AI you have to deal with its limitations: You can’t control the weather, you can’t control how the AI will interpret certain things. It’s limitations you have to work within, work around, with photography more physical, with AI you’re putting your lens into a very weird conceptual kind of space. In either case, as an artist, you’re making lots of choices, turn lots of knobs, to increase your odds but ultimately still rely on chance and throw away tons of shots which aren’t quite right. It’s quite a different process than drawing which is why I think so much of the critique comes from… painters. That was the case back in the days when photography was new, and it’s the same now, modulo people now using graphics tablets of which I have one connected to my PC mind you just make this clear even if I can’t draw for shit I’m not half-bad at sculpting. I wouldn’t really dream of doing something serious with gen AI that doesn’t have at least a depth map as input, there’s just not enough control without that kind of thing.

I’m not talking about reinterpretation, I’m talking about faithful recreation. Archaeologists do that kind of thing, and it’s valuable, why not art historians?

And judging by your reaction my suggestion indeed is the right kind of transgression to recreate the thing.

If you want it a bit more pedestrian, just in case you happen to be a museum director: Ask the janitor to go into a hardware store, and buy a urinal they like. Then tell them to write “The real Duchamp” on it, and position it on a pedestal. Attach a standard museum plaque, crediting the work to the janitor.

With some time passed, I actually have the high-brow answer you so desire:

The talking glass, which might only be spotted on a second take as the human mind first glances over the inconsistency, focussed on reading the text, challenges us to emphasise with Excel’s own problems deriving meaning from the input it’s given. Just as we mislooked, assumed context, so does Excel assume context, and January 17th.

barsoap is reaching for the stars here to justify something they know is bullshit.

That’s where flowers grow that’s why it’s beautiful. You may dismiss it, others might quote Bob Ross and call it a happy accident, yet others might jerk off to it, talking about Jung, how the human behind the generation, in their chuckle, might not have been aware of the context of what they were producing, but channelled the collective unconsciousness’ understanding of it and then wax on about the chuckle as the self-portrait, archetype, of hunches.

If you think that’s BS then you should read some of the explanations that come with modern academic works of art. As in the stuff you’re producing when you study art. I’m fucking holding back here, they seem to be grading by unintelligibility and length of the justification.

Is that BS? I am quite sympathetic to that notion. But that doesn’t challenge its status as art.

Being profoundly offensive is the only way to do the work justice. To actually recreate it is not to recreate the original form, but the reaction it caused. The very point of the work includes that any urinal is just as good as any other, so why the pretence that this particular shape, the “R. Mutt” signature, has significance?

Looking at the replicas is like praying to ashes. I’m talking about passing on the fire.

As a connoisseur, maybe you can explain why the oversized glass is talking about itself to me.

Because the artist – the human, not the AI, that is – decided that it should. Maybe just with a chuckle, no deeper meaning, wouldn’t be the first time that happens (much to the chagrin of the academic art world).

The toilet isn’t the interesting thing, the interesting thing is how there’s now authorised replicas in museums (the original is lost) signifying the discussion around art perception, not the art itself. Looking at one doesn’t give you more insight than reading “and he put a urinal on a pedestal” in a textbook. It’s a fucking urinal. The piece having no meaning onto itself was part of the point, it’s all in the context. Yet, somehow, the replicas are authorised. A true rebel museum would forego getting an authorised one and buy a random one off the shelf, then proclaim it to be original.

You can’t go into a room carrying a plucked chicken, proclaiming “behold, a human!” without there being Aristotelians around. Well you can but noone would talk about it millennia later.

AI does not have the creative capacity to make art.

I agree!

And the same applies to cameras. That doesn’t mean that photographs can’t be art, though.

It’s not dada. It’s too coherent to be dada, and it’s too shit to be anything else.

TBH my first instinct was trolling, especially as it’s easy to overlook when you’re just reading the text, not focussing on anything else. Point is when you’d hang this thing in an exhibition the audience would go all “ahh” and examine the mechanism.

The academic art world is beset nowadays with blurbs of barely intelligible critical theory to justify themselves, I find a fresh amateur artists saying “oh that’s interesting, neat, let’s keep it” much more interesting.

Literally nobody is saying or thinking that. What we are saying is that there is absolutely no way that OP’s prompt contained “…and make the optimist BE the glass itself…”.

So what? It’s still a choice to keep this result, and not another. Artists capitalise on chance occurrence all the time.

The irony is that you’re giving OP way more benefit of the doubt in your reading of what they produced than you’ve given me,

OP is not here to defend themselves. They’re also not digging themselves further into a hole.