If you're going to browse a website that's known for being full of awful tech-bros, racists, and fans of paul graham, it's usually best to avoid advertising that to the rest of the internet.
Most sites are too lazy to do anything based on referrer, but there are several sites out there that go the extra mile to put out a welcome mat to people coming from this wretched site.
No, I think you've confused "I don't like these people and if you don't like them either here is an easy way to avoid them" with "they're stomping on my rightgs!!!!1!!!!!1!!! waah!"
Advising someone "you should clear your browser history after going on 4chan, pornhub, or hacker news" isn't exactly "thought policing", nor did it mean to sound like I was yelling.
It's just a little informational thing. Like, evidently parts of the rest of the internet have realized how bad 4chan and hacker news are, as we can see by the referrer-detection stuff. I'm not telling you to stop visiting such bad websites, just telling you that you may want to cover your tracks if you intend to fit into polite (internet) society.
This is not me; this is Protesilaos Stavrou, a well-known and cherished member of the Emacs community. I just watched this video and, since I'm in no position of helping directly, decided to share it here.
What you’re not getting is the conscious part of “conscious decision”. The brain makes the decision BEFORE the consciousness is aware of it. But that’s not how we think we decide stuff; the experience we have is that we consciously choose to do something. The experiment shows that decision is actually made by the unconscious part of the mind, and the consciousness is only made aware of it later, while still believing it was in control the entire time.
> "They reported that just as they were ‘about to’ push the button, but before they had actually decided to do so"
It seems to me it's just a matter of definition. Clearly it was a conscious decision, since they are able to talk about it. They even say they were "just about to push the button". The only confusion is that they also claim they hadn't "decided" to do so. So clearly there is no issue with the "conscious" part, but perhaps some confusion about what constitutes a "decision"?
I mean, what does it mean to be "about to push", if not that they had in fact decided to?
I've always felt to an extent that conscious actions can be at some level impulsive - any attempt to explain how we made the decision to act, no matter how well-founded and seemingly logical, invariably involves some post-hoc rationalization. That said, I also feel that they are still conscious decisions. Taking action just seems to me divorced from the process of explaining "why", which we frequently might not even get right or necessarily understand, sometimes only making sense of it later.
Our brains are already known to lie to themselves to make things appear synchronous that aren't actually synchronous. For example, syncing sound in a TV broadcast makes use of this. And I believe it's the same story with limb motion and tactile feedback. If you touch your finger, then it seems to feel like you touched it immediately despite this feeling requiring some time to work its way to your brain.
One interpretation of the experiment is that your unconscious brain decides to push the button and then tells your conscious brain to make up a story about how it was the one who made the decision.
Another interpretation of the experiment is that your conscious brain decides to push the button, but then your unconscious brain messes with your conscious brain's perception of time such that you'll believe that the button press is happening simultaneously to when you make the decision. The end result being that you "feel" like the slide changes happens before you decide to do it.
But they're saying they "were about to push the button". That sounds like they were at least very close to making the final decision. And clearly "aware".
> What you’re not getting is the conscious part of “conscious decision”. The brain makes the decision BEFORE the consciousness is aware of it.
All "conscious" decisions necessarily have to be made by unconscious processes in the brain, because consciousness itself is a result of unconscious processes. Every conscious decision is thus made by unconscious processes. How could it be any other way?
However, people mistakenly take this experiment to mean that we don't actually have conscious control of our actions. That's incorrect. Think of conscious decision making like a two step algorithm, "conscious" decision making by unconscious processes + store decision in short-term memory = conscious awareness (this is one possible model, not necessarily the model). If the system in the experiment can read the output of the decision making step faster than it gets stored in our memory, then it will produce the results described.
>However, people mistakenly take this experiment to mean that we don't actually have conscious control of our actions.
This is incorrect. Libertarian Free Will, the type you seem to think humans have is an illusion and does not mesh with reality. No serious Neuroscientists or Philosophers of Mind believe it exists.
Note: this has nothing to with the political bent of Libertarianism.
OK, my bit twiddling knowledge is weak, my google skills are weaker still, and now I'm curious: what does "AND with a two's complement of the condition" mean, exactly?
Same here, but, if you use it with Gmail, let me recommend Abdó Roig-Maranges' fork of offlineimap, which implements labels[1][2]! That way you can sync only [Gmail].All Mail and all the other info (such as /Inbox, /Sent and any other custom labels) come as X-Keywords in the header (no duplicates, and no lost metadata)[3]. And mu4e supports all this[4]!
[3] [Gmail].Trash and [Gmail].Drafts are also real folders, not just labels. You should sync them too. [Gmail].Sent Mail is just a saved search for /Sent labels. mu4e asks for a "sent" folder but, since you should (setq mu4e-sent-messages-behavior 'delete) anyway with Gmail, it becomes a dummy folder locally, and all is well.
I've bookmarked your comment. I'm gonna be forced to move back to commandline when gmail finally foists the new compose on me (fuckers[1]).
[1] Some of us want to, you know, use email for longer messages than a tweet. It's hard to do that when PgUp/PgDn are so janky. And don't even get me started on S-PgUp and S-PgDn.
El-get is a package manager that really helps with the plugins. It allows you to install them very easily and update them with just one command, among other things.
Vimwiki does an essentially equivalent thing, and there are numerous other tools for other environments. Your favored tool is really not that special. Sorry. =)
(Me, I just use Dropbox and vimwiki, and occasionally push it to a private Hg repo on BitBucket.)
Your favored tool is really not that special. Sorry. =)
Vimwiki isn't in the same league as Org mode. Sorry. For example, how can I create and edit spreadsheets using Vimwiki?
Read the entire manual to understand Org mode's power. It has no equivalent that I know of, and I searched thoroughly before giving up and learning Emacs.
I've read it. Hell, I've used it, before I discarded emacs. Perhaps I should amend it with "unless you want to bend one tool to do the job of the others". Which I guess is half the point of emacs in general, so I apologize and retract my statement--it's quite special.
Have you actually used org-mode to say that these are "essentially equivalent", or do you just say this because your favored tool cannot possibly be worse than someone else's favored tool?
From what I've seen, vim people generally are not really interested in creating enormous extensions as the emacs people are, so if they actually created something similar in power and complexity, I would be really surprised and impressed.
I really think Emacs is much easier to figure out than it looks. Meaning: you probably already grok it, but you _think_ you don't because it's Emacs, damn it!, it's supposed to be hard and complex and bend the fabric of space and time!
But its essence is actually quite simple: it's a toolbox for all things text. Not a _tool_, mind you; a toolbox. It _contains_ tools. Lots and lots of them. Oh, and it has funny keyboard shortcuts.
So here is Emacs in a nutshell:
1. "find-file" is a function;
2. you can "M-x any-function" to invoke it;
3. you can assign a shortcut like "C-x C-f" to any function;
4. you can define your own functions in the same language Emacs itself is written (i.e., you can really extend Emacs, not only call some simpleton API);
5. you customize Emacs' settings and behaviors by changing some variables ("please highlight the line the point is currently on").
That's pretty much it. Yes, there is a mountain of functions and variables and modes that are complicated and interconnected and you _will_ spend some time configuring everything. But the gist, the essence, the core -- that's it. You've already grokked Emacs. Now you can learn one function at a time and extend your knowledge of it little by little. It doesn't have to be more complicated than that.
The modes? Well, remember, Emacs is a toolbox. Each mode is a tool, specialized in some area of the Great Forest of Text Editing. There's a mode that will help you save keystrokes (yasnippet); there's a mode that will help you write code in the language X (x-mode); there's a mode that will help you open files and buffers easily (ido, anything); there's a mode that will help you with your todos and prose-like text (org-mode).
Regarding org-mode specifically: you can spend weeks using only ONE shortcut, Shift-TAB, and already it will be extremely useful. Then you'll wish for some feature (like adding tags to headlines), and you'll find that it's already implemented. And that pattern will repeat, and repeat, and soon you'll be using lots of advanced features, and you won't even notice, because it'll have become a natural thing.
I hope this makes sense. And, just to be clear: I know a size does not fit all. I did not write this to say "everyone should like Emacs, look, I proved it". This is just my experience with it. I hope it's useful to someone.
In Chromium, an alert bar stating "Follow the directions in the console to begin" pops up, and the console is highlighted while everything else is grayed out.
It's a CLI-based interface, not a click-based interface, which is a welcome change and a good thing for beginning programmers to learn.
Oh, thanks. It's odd, the CLI doesn't even appear here. Had to go to Firefox to see it. Probably some blocking extension getting on the way.
But still there were problems: the CLI did not recognize my keyboard layout. I could not type quotes, so I couldn't even say my name... Too bad, looks cool.
I registered just so I could say this. People keep comparing HTML to Assembly. Come on. HTML is probably the highest level you can get when talking to a computer, at least for the foreseeable future.
I think the more appropriate comparison is to those software generators, or whatever they are called, in which you drag and drop buttons and text fields and have arrows (or something) to convey action.
You don't see a lot of good software made with those, now, do you?
HTML is not Assembly. It's not even C. It's Python, or Ruby.
