2021-06-16 00:00:17 <KipIngram   > Yes.  I've perused set theory and group theory.  Ever since I rerealized how important group theory is in physics I've been trying to pick some of it up.
2021-06-16 00:00:47 <KipIngram   > I suppose that importance in physics is a consequence of symmetries in nature.
2021-06-16 00:01:33 <siraben     > Right, in discussions with physics majors, they're quite interested in Lie groups in particular
2021-06-16 00:02:04 <KipIngram   > Yeah.  The "menu" of subatomic particles seems to come almost directly from all that.
2021-06-16 06:28:16 <siraben     > crc: last "old freenode" server got wiped a few hours ago
2021-06-16 06:28:21 <siraben     > nothing remains of the old network
2021-06-16 06:30:30 <neuro`      > Bad effects of microdosing
2021-06-16 06:30:52 <neuro`      > Was it the Crown Prince of Korea that deleted the old network
2021-06-16 06:32:06 <siraben     > neuro`: not even close to a crown prince, but yes
2021-06-16 06:32:28 <siraben     > 
ACTION uploaded an image: (2036KiB) < https://libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/r0/download/matrix.org/qTKYmrjDuMIabyPIgctiQWbh/banenode.png >

2021-06-16 06:32:29 <siraben     > I made a little thing
2021-06-16 06:36:04 <neuro`      > Accurate
2021-06-16 06:38:33 <siraben     > "freedom is slavery"
2021-06-16 06:49:44 <crc         > it's sad to see the end of the network I spent 18+ years in, but it's time to move on as best as we can
2021-06-16 07:02:41 <siraben     > crc: what's the status of the bridge?
2021-06-16 07:02:56 <siraben     > for me it's only been 3 years at most, and is sad to see the end as well
2021-06-16 07:04:04 <crc         > the bridge should still be running
2021-06-16 07:05:39 <crc         > messages from here are still making it to whatever server the bridge and clog are on based on the logs at http://tunes.org/~nef/logs/forth/index.php?s=time&r=1
2021-06-16 08:18:21 <veltas      > siraben: Have you read 1984?
2021-06-16 08:18:34 <siraben     > veltas: of course :)
2021-06-16 08:18:40 <veltas      > I thought it was more interesting than it sounded
2021-06-16 08:44:26 <siraben     > who's channel owner on the other side? cbridge
2021-06-16 08:46:52 <crc         > siraben: mark4 cbridge
2021-06-16 08:47:24 <siraben     > crc: even though it's been wiped? cbridge
2021-06-16 08:48:16 <cbridge     > -!- ChanServ changed mode/#forth -> +o  proteusguy
2021-06-16 08:49:17 <crc         > he reregistered it cbridge
2021-06-16 08:50:01 <siraben     > I see cbridge
2021-06-16 10:01:03 <KipIngram   > :
2021-06-16 10:01:09 <KipIngram   > Ooops sorry...
2021-06-16 10:19:12 <KipIngram   > Yes, cbridge seems fine.
2021-06-16 10:20:58 <KipIngram   > Well, regarding the above discussion, "entities" are bought and integrated into large corporations all the time.  When they are, they "end" as what they were before that.  A LOT of very fine small compa
2021-06-16 10:22:47 <KipIngram   > Success draws interest from large players.
2021-06-16 10:23:12 <KipIngram   > It's the very fact that the network was thriving and vibrant that made a target out of it to start with.
2021-06-16 10:23:41 <KipIngram   > HP didn't change its name, but the same thing basically happened.
2021-06-16 10:24:00 <KipIngram   > Back when it was run by the engineers who founded it, it was one of the best companies going and made fine, high quality products.
2021-06-16 10:24:03 <KipIngram   > Extremely  high.
2021-06-16 10:24:25 <KipIngram   > Then the corporate bean counters gained control and started pushing costs down, and now it's no different from any other big company.
2021-06-16 10:25:06 <KipIngram   > Back in the day, those engineers in charge took personal pride in the quality of the product.s
2021-06-16 10:25:17 <KipIngram   > No one does any more - it's all about an entry in an account ledger.
2021-06-16 10:27:29 <KipIngram   > I owned a whole string of HP calculators during that time, and I just watched them become of lower and lower quality with each iteration.
2021-06-16 10:27:45 <KipIngram   > The same thing happened to Palm handhled organizers.
2021-06-16 10:28:00 <KipIngram   > The Palm Vx was an amazing little workhorse of a gadget.
2021-06-16 10:28:07 <KipIngram   > From there on, it was downhill.
2021-06-16 10:28:20 <KipIngram   > I forget who bought them, but someone did.
2021-06-16 10:28:41 <crc         > HP bought them iirc
2021-06-16 10:28:57 <KipIngram   > I was wanting to think that, but I thought it might be because I'd just talked about HP.
2021-06-16 10:28:59 <KipIngram   > Thanks.
2021-06-16 10:29:07 <crc         > Access bought PalmSource, HP bought the hardware Palm
2021-06-16 10:29:07 <KipIngram   > So that wasn't really a second example, then.  :-(
2021-06-16 10:29:35 <KipIngram   > I had a Vx, and I never doubted it.  It was always there, it always worked, it was easy to use and didn't give me grief.
2021-06-16 10:29:58 <KipIngram   > Later devices had cheap plastic touch screens that wore out after a few months - it was pathetic.
2021-06-16 10:30:15 <KipIngram   > The Vx had a glass touch screen.
2021-06-16 10:30:42 <KipIngram   > And I used it for years and it never changed in how it responded to my gestures.
2021-06-16 10:31:29 <KipIngram   > I imagine if you look at the things Lee does in the future without bias, you will see that he at least THINKS that he is taking actions that raise his chances of monetizing his new resources.
2021-06-16 10:31:34 <KipIngram   > That's what I predict, at least.
2021-06-16 10:31:43 <KipIngram   > I don't think he's here just to destroy something.
2021-06-16 10:32:01 <KipIngram   > He's here to make money.  He may be smart or dumb about how he does it, but that's what is motivating him.
2021-06-16 10:32:19 <KipIngram   > Rather he's THERE to make money.
2021-06-16 10:33:31 <cbridge     > <iv4nshm4k0v> Re. 'corporate bean counters gained control', I think it's exactly the thing they call 'capitalism.'
2021-06-16 10:41:26 <KipIngram   > It's an unfortunate long-term tendency of capitalism, that I believe should be regulated away.
2021-06-16 10:41:43 <KipIngram   > I think it could be done rather nicely just by working the tax code in an appropriate way.
2021-06-16 10:42:06 <KipIngram   > I believe VERY strongly in capitalism, but I've come in my older years to believe it needs to be regulated to prevent excessive centralization of wealth and power.
2021-06-16 10:42:17 <KipIngram   > tl;dr - I agree with you.
2021-06-16 10:42:20 <KipIngram   > "but..."
2021-06-16 10:42:48 <KipIngram   > That doesn't change the fact that capitalism as a CONCEPT is the economic system most in tune with individual freedom, and it's therefore my system of choice.
2021-06-16 10:43:01 <KipIngram   > But I think history is showing us very clearly that UNREGULATED capitalism leads to problems.
2021-06-16 10:43:41 <KipIngram   > This isn't unknown - in Economics 101 courses, they stress the fact that all of the benefits of capitalism accure only under conditions of "perfect competition."
2021-06-16 10:43:54 <cbridge     > <iv4nshm4k0v> KipIngram: "Capitalism" or "free market"?
2021-06-16 10:43:54 <KipIngram   > That's defined as "no entity is large enough to steer the market through its own actions alone."
2021-06-16 10:44:02 <KipIngram   > So entities need to be kept small and numeroous.
2021-06-16 10:44:04 <KipIngram   > numerous
2021-06-16 10:44:14 <KipIngram   > Well, those mean sort of the same thing to me.
2021-06-16 10:44:27 <neuro`      > I started to find capitalism agreeable only in the past few years, but I hope it's not to do with my making a lot of money.
2021-06-16 10:44:29 <KipIngram   > Of the two, "free market" sort of describes my ideal the best.
2021-06-16 10:44:37 <KipIngram   > :-)
2021-06-16 10:44:45 <KipIngram   > neuro: You are allowed to be human.
2021-06-16 10:44:57 <KipIngram   > But look - think about the other end of capitalism.
2021-06-16 10:45:10 <cbridge     > <iv4nshm4k0v> My current understanding is that the idea of "free market" is "public benefit through competition."  While that of capitalism is "private benefit through achieving monopoly."
2021-06-16 10:45:12 <KipIngram   > Individual people freely engaging with trade with one another.  By choice.
2021-06-16 10:45:16 <KipIngram   > That is a beautiful thing.
2021-06-16 10:45:24 <KipIngram   > It only gets ugly when large players start to "take over."
2021-06-16 10:45:31 <neuro`      > I still feel no one should be allowed to claim "ownership" of the power they happen to possess mostly by circumstances.
2021-06-16 10:45:54 <KipIngram   > Yes, there are some issues with how ownership of fixed resources is handled.
2021-06-16 10:45:59 <KipIngram   > That might need some regulation too.
2021-06-16 10:46:10 <KipIngram   > But what about the things I've accured gradually through hard work?
2021-06-16 10:46:12 <KipIngram   > Those are mine.
2021-06-16 10:46:15 <neuro`      > I would rather work for the love of the art and helping and betterment of society than "enterpreneurs".
2021-06-16 10:46:28 <KipIngram   > Well, you are a very good person then.
2021-06-16 10:46:37 <neuro`      > KipIngram: What about the circumstances that allowed you to work hard?
2021-06-16 10:46:39 <KipIngram   > We have to have a system that works for all people, even those not so altruistic as you.
2021-06-16 10:46:45 <KipIngram   > Forcing your altruism on others is tyranny.
2021-06-16 10:46:55 <KipIngram   > They have to be free too.
2021-06-16 10:46:59 <neuro`      > If there's one thing that we need to force, that's the prevention of suffering.
2021-06-16 10:47:10 <neuro`      > Or rather the prevention of causing suffering on others.
2021-06-16 10:47:12 <KipIngram   > I can't do anything about that, neuro.
2021-06-16 10:47:23 <KipIngram   > I was born where I was born, and faced the hand I was dealt.
2021-06-16 10:47:38 <neuro`      > Well, you can be forced to help others who are in a more difficult situation than you.
2021-06-16 10:47:55 <KipIngram   > It's not really the outcome that matters - it's the process.  People need to be FREE, each day, to do and act as they wish.
2021-06-16 10:48:03 <neuro`      > Free from what?
2021-06-16 10:48:19 <neuro`      > Free to do anything shouldn't include causing harm on others even indirectly.
2021-06-16 10:48:23 <KipIngram   > That will lead to some outcome, and for a long time that outcome is beneficial to all.  Eventually it leads to things like corporations, but we could avoid that through public action.
2021-06-16 10:48:28 <KipIngram   > Free to act.  To live.  To be.
2021-06-16 10:48:33 <neuro`      > I think amassing capital and resources is indireclty causing harm on others.
2021-06-16 10:48:36 <KipIngram   > To think as I wish.
2021-06-16 10:49:01 <KipIngram   > I disagree - I think my "purchases" fuel the economy that provides jobs and produces the sum total of goods and services.
2021-06-16 10:49:12 <KipIngram   > The goods and services we need to live have to be produced somehow.
2021-06-16 10:49:21 <neuro`      > Capitalism prevents people the freedom to do anything, except they have some sort of capital to begin with (be it non-material power such as skills, etc.)
2021-06-16 10:49:26 <neuro`      > except when*
2021-06-16 10:49:32 <KipIngram   > I'd rather that happen by people's free choice than by people acting with a gun to their heads.  That's basically slavery.
2021-06-16 10:50:09 <KipIngram   > The alternative to people choosing their own actions is for them to be forced into action.
2021-06-16 10:50:15 <KipIngram   > That is a no-brainer choice as far as I'm concerned.
2021-06-16 10:50:20 <neuro`      > Yes that's the problem which makes me find capitalism as agreeable: forcing people to be good can and has been problematic in the history.
2021-06-16 10:50:22 <KipIngram   > Period and full stop.
2021-06-16 10:50:23 <neuro`      > And people are corrupt.
2021-06-16 10:50:30 <KipIngram   > Yes.
2021-06-16 10:50:53 <KipIngram   > Let people be self-serving.  Just don't let them grow and grow and grow until they can corrupt the entire system.
2021-06-16 10:50:59 <KipIngram   > Put a reasonable limit on that growth.
2021-06-16 10:51:20 <KipIngram   > One that's high enough to leave incentives for the ambitious, but low enough to prevent anyone "buying the government" and things like that.
2021-06-16 10:51:36 <KipIngram   > As I said, I think it could be done via the tax code.
2021-06-16 10:51:46 <KipIngram   > Just have taxes rise to nearly 100% up there somewher.
2021-06-16 10:51:50 <KipIngram   > I don't know exactly where.
2021-06-16 10:52:03 <KipIngram   > After a few hundred thousand a year, or maybe a million - I don't know the right answer.
2021-06-16 10:52:14 <neuro`      > It's a bit over 50% here, and I think that's good. But unfortunatley there's corruption news in the government offices every now and then.
2021-06-16 10:52:19 <KipIngram   > But we want a system that results in the "richest Americans" numbering in the millions, not the hundreds.
2021-06-16 10:52:33 <KipIngram   > And the "largest American business" numbering in the tens or hundreds of thousands.
2021-06-16 10:52:36 <KipIngram   > Not hundreds.
2021-06-16 10:53:05 <KipIngram   > In 2015 the top 400 taxpayers in America earned an average of $270 million apience.
2021-06-16 10:53:10 <KipIngram   > NO ONE NEEDS THAT MUCH.
2021-06-16 10:53:16 <KipIngram   > That's excessive.
2021-06-16 10:53:33 <KipIngram   > Of course, the elite will never sit back and let us implement something like I envision now.
2021-06-16 10:53:41 <KipIngram   > I don't know how to fix it.
2021-06-16 10:53:49 <cbridge     > <cmtptr> why does it bother you if someone else has a bunch of money?
2021-06-16 10:53:56 <neuro`      > I'm still not sure why it's not possible to create a system where people are incentivized to work not for material gain and ability to buy luxuries, but for the sake of work itself,
2021-06-16 10:54:16 <cbridge     > <cmtptr> KipIngram> But I think history is showing us very clearly that UNREGULATED capitalism leads to problems.
2021-06-16 10:54:18 <KipIngram   > I don't mind them having it and me not.  It bothers me because it empowers them to manipulate the system in underhanded ways.
2021-06-16 10:54:22 <KipIngram   > Bribes, corruption, etc.
2021-06-16 10:54:30 <cbridge     > <cmtptr> can you name a monopoly that wasn't maintained with government help?
2021-06-16 10:54:47 <KipIngram   > I haven't done a study.
2021-06-16 10:55:10 <KipIngram   > But yes, most monopolies utilize government influence to maintain their position.
2021-06-16 10:55:28 <KipIngram   > It used to be in the US that the federal government regularly engaged in "trust busting."
2021-06-16 10:55:57 <KipIngram   > The last time I remember that happening was when AT&T was forcibly broken up in the 70's or 80's.  Since then the government seems to have turned away from its duty to prevent monopolies.
2021-06-16 10:56:01 <cbridge     > <iv4nshm4k0v> Back in the day, G. K. Chesterton made an argument along the lines of "an enterprise that has a budget way over that of some countries should not be allowed to call itself 'priva
2021-06-16 10:56:06 <KipIngram   > It's been "bought off."
2021-06-16 10:56:38 <KipIngram   > Yes, I'm familiar, and it's not a bad argument.  I'd rather use the tax code to prevent such enterprises from even existing.
2021-06-16 10:56:51 <KipIngram   > Incentify them to split themselves up rather than continue growing.
2021-06-16 10:57:00 <KipIngram   > To split themselves up to be in lower tax brackets.
2021-06-16 10:57:10 <neuro`      > Also the value of the work is questionable. Why is tapping away at computer for autistic pleasures is considered hard-work, but not brushing a public toilet 8 hours a day is not?
2021-06-16 10:57:44 <KipIngram   > People are different.  I'm sure every person would like to achieve work they enjoy.  Some do, some don't.  That can't be fixed.
2021-06-16 10:57:56 <KipIngram   > You can't produce a system that provides "equal outcome for all."
2021-06-16 10:58:04 <KipIngram   > Such systems don't work, and history supports that.
2021-06-16 10:58:09 <neuro`      > The value given is abstract and decided arbitrarily by some people (to their advtange).
2021-06-16 10:58:11 <KipIngram   > Equal opportunity is the best you can do.
2021-06-16 10:58:30 <KipIngram   > You want the value to be determined by "the actions of all."
2021-06-16 10:58:38 <KipIngram   > That's the point of preventing  large concentrations of wealth.
2021-06-16 10:58:49 <KipIngram   > So that it's an economy wide vote what's highly valued.
2021-06-16 10:59:04 <KipIngram   > But the fact that some skills will be valued more than others is unavoidable.
2021-06-16 10:59:25 <KipIngram   > Life is not "fair," and it cannot be made fair to the point of equal outcomes.
2021-06-16 10:59:25 <neuro`      > That has the unfortunate problem of the advertisement and consent manufacturing using the power of money.
2021-06-16 10:59:39 <KipIngram   > I don't follow that.
2021-06-16 10:59:40 <neuro`      > People can be convinced to buy crap by creating a sense of brand and value.
2021-06-16 10:59:50 <KipIngram   > Uneducated people can, yes.
2021-06-16 10:59:51 <neuro`      > Sorry my english sucks, let me know if it doesn't make sense.
2021-06-16 11:00:00 <KipIngram   > No no - I got it with that next line.
2021-06-16 11:00:06 <KipIngram   > You're doing fine.
2021-06-16 11:00:56 <KipIngram   > My position is summed up as "leave people ENTIRELY free, until they begin to achieve so much success that they might influence the system in underhanded ways.  Limit their freedom just shy of that."
2021-06-16 11:01:17 <KipIngram   > Precise numbers would need to be defined / chosen, but I'm more interested in the concept.
2021-06-16 11:01:39 <KipIngram   > The "little people" should be able to do almost anything they please - as you build your economic influence you face limits.
2021-06-16 11:01:43 <cbridge     > <cmtptr> neuro`> Also the value of the work is questionable. Why is tapping away at computer for autistic pleasures is considered hard-work, but not brushing a public toilet 8 hours a day is n
2021-06-16 11:01:55 <KipIngram   > It's actually not that different from GKC's position you quoted above.
2021-06-16 11:01:56 <cbridge     > <cmtptr> neuro`, supply and demand
2021-06-16 11:02:06 <KipIngram   > Right.
2021-06-16 11:02:06 <neuro`      > demand is manufactured
2021-06-16 11:02:11 <KipIngram   > Not entirely.
2021-06-16 11:02:22 <KipIngram   > Claiming that's totally the case is a straw man.
2021-06-16 11:02:30 <KipIngram   > You can point to examples, but standard economics still operates.
2021-06-16 11:02:34 <KipIngram   > And operates well.
2021-06-16 11:02:56 <KipIngram   > A free market system is amazingly well able to respond to population wide demand and tune the economy accordingly.
2021-06-16 11:03:18 <KipIngram   > And besides, people need to be free - if a person lets his "demand" be motivated by someone else, well, he should be free to do that.
2021-06-16 11:03:26 <KipIngram   > It doesn't really matter where people's wants come from.
2021-06-16 11:03:31 <KipIngram   > Once they have them, they have them.
2021-06-16 11:03:49 <KipIngram   > Don't let any advertising company become so large that it can flood the market to the exclusion of all others.
2021-06-16 11:04:03 <KipIngram   > Competition in advertising will push competing information out in front of people.
2021-06-16 11:04:22 <KipIngram   > Small economic entities are motivated to produce as much customer satisfaction as they can.
2021-06-16 11:04:38 <KipIngram   > Large ones begin to become able to "exploit" their customer base, so let's not have those large entities.
2021-06-16 11:05:03 <KipIngram   > We are way, way, WAY off topic here guys.
2021-06-16 11:05:07 <KipIngram   > I started it - I'm sorry.
2021-06-16 11:05:20 <KipIngram   > But I did have some help continuing it.  :-)
2021-06-16 11:06:05 <KipIngram   > But to sum up, I believe in freedom.  Freedom should only be curtailed when it's necessary to prevent people / organizations from achieving excessive influence.
2021-06-16 11:07:19 <cbridge     > <cmtptr> neuro`, from my experience, those who lament the "underpaid" are usually approaching the problem from the wrong direction.  no employer is obligated to hire you for anything.  the key
2021-06-16 11:07:50 <neuro`      > Or should be curtailed when it's clearly trying to manipulate and take advantage of people's impressionability to create value.
2021-06-16 11:08:41 <cbridge     > <cmtptr> no, you should not curtail freedom to protect the gulluble from themselves
2021-06-16 11:09:00 <cbridge     > <cmtptr> that is by definition a nanny state
2021-06-16 11:09:13 <neuro`      > It's a difficult problem. I for one don't feel I deserve more luxury than others just because I'm more skilled.
2021-06-16 11:09:29 <cbridge     > <cmtptr> then you're free to give away what you earn
2021-06-16 11:09:35 <neuro`      > If someone is weaker than me, I don't like seeing them being taken advantage clearly.
2021-06-16 11:09:49 <neuro`      > I'd like to prevent those who do that.
2021-06-16 11:10:26 <cbridge     > <cmtptr> you are free to help people who care about from making poor decisions
2021-06-16 11:10:31 <cbridge     > <cmtptr> s/who/you/
2021-06-16 11:10:35 <neuro`      > People claim they have the right to prevent you from doing/using something, and call it "freedom to own".
2021-06-16 11:11:23 <KipIngram   > Ownership as a concept isn't the problem.  The problem is that some things in the world are of fixed supply, like land and other such things.
2021-06-16 11:11:36 <KipIngram   > I do think there are some faults with how we handle ownership of those things.
2021-06-16 11:11:49 <KipIngram   > There's a guy who wrote about that - hang on while I remember his name.
2021-06-16 11:12:32 <KipIngram   > Henry George.  He had a lot to say about how control of such resources should be managed.  The background economy was still capitilistic - his ideas affected only that sort of resource.
2021-06-16 11:12:48 <KipIngram   > There are other resources that can be created to meet demand, and owning that kind of thing presents no problems.
2021-06-16 11:13:00 <KipIngram   > That's MY car - go get your own
2021-06-16 11:13:10 <KipIngram   > We can make as many cars as we want to, so that turns out fine.
2021-06-16 11:13:25 <KipIngram   > But you are correct that there are some hard bits around other sorts of resource.
2021-06-16 11:13:43 <nihilazo    > we can't really make as many cars as we want
2021-06-16 11:13:50 <KipIngram   > I'm not opposed to considering ideas like George offered.
2021-06-16 11:13:54 <nihilazo    > because cars are made out of the limited natural resources
2021-06-16 11:13:54 <KipIngram   > In theory we can.
2021-06-16 11:14:07 <KipIngram   > That won't be an issue until later.
2021-06-16 11:14:11 <KipIngram   > It's fine for now.
2021-06-16 11:14:18 <cbridge     > <cmtptr> so is land
2021-06-16 11:14:26 <KipIngram   > And we don't know what the future holds in store - in a couple of centuries we may be mining asteroids.
2021-06-16 11:14:29 <KipIngram   > Who knows?
2021-06-16 11:14:30 <nihilazo    > we said the same about oil, it was fine for now until it stopped being
2021-06-16 11:14:32 <nihilazo    > same with coal
2021-06-16 11:14:43 <nihilazo    > and turns out, those things kinda fucked up the planet
2021-06-16 11:14:43 <KipIngram   > And we're much MORE LIKELY to be mining asteroids if we let free enterprise drive us.
2021-06-16 11:14:51 <KipIngram   > Well ^ that last is an opinion.
2021-06-16 11:15:02 <KipIngram   > I think that, but I can't prove it.
2021-06-16 11:15:06 <nihilazo    > the existence of climate change is an opinion?
2021-06-16 11:15:13 <nihilazo    > I think you'll find it's like...scientific consensus
2021-06-16 11:15:20 <KipIngram   > No, I meant the last thing I said.
2021-06-16 11:15:23 <nihilazo    > oh ok
2021-06-16 11:15:25 <cbridge     > <cmtptr> science is not determined by concensus
2021-06-16 11:15:37 <KipIngram   > Oh dear - let's not go down that road please.
2021-06-16 11:15:42 <KipIngram   > That never turns out well.
2021-06-16 11:15:57 <KipIngram   > There are some good points on both sides, but neither side will admit that.
2021-06-16 11:16:01 <KipIngram   > So it never ends well.
2021-06-16 11:16:15 <KipIngram   > I actually think I know what we should do about climate change.
2021-06-16 11:16:29 <cbridge     > <cmtptr> i don't intend to debate climate change here, but to deny that there even is a debate is just ... well, denial
2021-06-16 11:16:32 <KipIngram   > The L1 Lagrange point is a point of gravitational stability between Earth and the Sun.
2021-06-16 11:16:41 <KipIngram   > It's an unstable equilibrium, so station keeping would be required.
2021-06-16 11:16:45 <neuro`      > I support the idea of a free environment where individuals and groups are incentivized to work on whatever they want. I just don't think it's smart to give them the amount of wealth/
2021-06-16 11:16:57 <KipIngram   > But I think we should build a huge "shutter" there that lets us regulate how much sunlight reaches the Earth.
2021-06-16 11:17:03 <KipIngram   > A "planetary thermostat."
2021-06-16 11:17:15 <neuro`      > The baseline should be the social welfare, and then comes free market.
2021-06-16 11:17:17 <KipIngram   > And I totally believe such a project is within the reach of an international collaboration.
2021-06-16 11:17:23 <KipIngram   > And it would COMPLETELY solve the problem.
2021-06-16 11:17:54 <KipIngram   > neuro: I do believe we should address social welfare, but not by detailed control of the economy.
2021-06-16 11:17:59 <KipIngram   > Just redistribute money.
2021-06-16 11:18:10 <KipIngram   > Not in an attempt to equalize everyone, but in an attempt to end poverty.
2021-06-16 11:18:19 <KipIngram   > Then let people spend that money how they wish in a free economy.
2021-06-16 11:18:29 <neuro`      > I think the main disagreement is on the tax rate and how tax money is used.
2021-06-16 11:18:47 <neuro`      > I think there should be a limit to how much value one can own for their personal use.
2021-06-16 11:18:49 <KipIngram   > yes - some people advocate "flat taxes."
2021-06-16 11:18:51 <KipIngram   > I don't think so.
2021-06-16 11:18:58 <KipIngram   > I think a progressive tax system is fine.
2021-06-16 11:19:07 <cbridge     > <cmtptr> neuro`, the ultrawealthy (other than politicians) don't steal their wealth, people choose to pay them that.  i don't think a football player is worth what they're paid, but it's none
2021-06-16 11:19:13 <KipIngram   > But it needs to be done in a way that doesn't completely destroy economic incentives to productivity.
2021-06-16 11:19:39 <nihilazo    > the ultrawealthy totally steal their wealth, people don't choose to work for them because if they didn't work for them they'd die
2021-06-16 11:19:48 <KipIngram   > cmtptr: But the ultrawealthy are in a position to exercise undue influence on the economy - they are often able to "rig the game" so that competition is impeded and things like that.
2021-06-16 11:19:56 <nihilazo    > it's not a voulentary choice if the result of you not working for the ultrawealthy is you die
2021-06-16 11:20:02 <KipIngram   > I'm all for "wealthy," but probably  not "ultra-wealthy."
2021-06-16 11:20:21 <KipIngram   > nihilazo: Right - that's what I mean by "rigging the game."
2021-06-16 11:20:21 <cbridge     > <cmtptr> nihilazo, that is not true.  the vast majority of business in the US are small businesses
2021-06-16 11:20:38 <cbridge     > <cmtptr> the majority of those employed in the US are employed by small businesses
2021-06-16 11:20:42 <KipIngram   > But the large corporations hold the lion's share of influence.
2021-06-16 11:20:56 <KipIngram   > It is without a doubt harder to start a small business than it used to be.
2021-06-16 11:21:04 <KipIngram   > It's not impossible.
2021-06-16 11:21:06 <neuro`      > cmtptr: Is it also okay for someone who sells drugs to people from a young age, when they're adults they're still willingly buy drugs? I think popular culture is designed in a way to
2021-06-16 11:21:08 <cbridge     > <cmtptr> yes, because of /government intervention/
2021-06-16 11:21:08 <KipIngram   > It's just more difficult.
2021-06-16 11:21:28 <KipIngram   > A lot of straw men are being hung up on both sides here.
2021-06-16 11:21:40 <neuro`      > It's freedom to influence people
2021-06-16 11:21:57 <neuro`      > Freedom to use psychology to be able to make them want to give them your money.
2021-06-16 11:22:05 <KipIngram   > As far as I can tell all parties in this discussion have some good points.
2021-06-16 11:22:15 <neuro`      > I'm not sure Facebook was ever worth that much, nor Apple is.
2021-06-16 11:23:06 <cbridge     > <cmtptr> neuro`, don't do drugs?
2021-06-16 11:23:57 <KipIngram   > Ok, just to toss my hat in that ring, I think that FOR THE MOST PART drugs should be legal, should be taxed, and the money used to provide free rehab for anyone who asks.  Quality should be controlled a
2021-06-16 11:24:03 <neuro`      > It's easier when they don't try to advertise and sell it constantly.
2021-06-16 11:24:12 <KipIngram   > Perhaps a few of the worst drugs should be banned, but bans don't really work that well, do they?
2021-06-16 11:24:17 <KipIngram   > They just create a black market.
2021-06-16 11:24:43 <KipIngram   > Pot certainly should not be illegal - it's an extremely innocuous drug.
2021-06-16 11:25:17 <cbridge     > <cmtptr> neuro`, children don't grow up in a vaccuum.  there should be a family to raise them and teach them how to be successful in this world.  it is ultimately harmful to all of us to try t
2021-06-16 11:25:19 <KipIngram   > The result of our "war on drugs" has been that we now have a government agency, the DEA, that is basically a power empire for a group of people.
2021-06-16 11:25:22 <neuro`      > Anyway, I don't want to skip dinner, and feeling not very strong, but I think it's nice discussion.
2021-06-16 11:25:31 <cess11      > bringing in material from asteroids isn't a good idea
2021-06-16 11:25:37 <KipIngram   > And those people are motivated by building their power, not protecting the community from the bad effects of drugs.
2021-06-16 11:25:50 <neuro`      > cmtptr: but not all children are lucky to have a good family to teach them how to live.
2021-06-16 11:26:13 <cbridge     > <cmtptr> neuro`, my family should not be punished for that
2021-06-16 11:26:16 <neuro`      > Why don't we just agree that the baseline as a society should be to prevent suffering first
2021-06-16 11:26:17 <KipIngram   > neuro: I enjoyed it as well - you "challenged me" in a really healthy way, and no one broke down into screaming at the other.  Enjoy dinner!
2021-06-16 11:26:41 <KipIngram   > I don't see that as "first" / "second."
2021-06-16 11:26:48 <KipIngram   > Yes, we should prevent suffering.
2021-06-16 11:26:50 <cbridge     > <cmtptr> cess11, we can offset the change in mass by launching democrats into space
2021-06-16 11:27:00 <KipIngram   > Yes, economic decisions should be mostly free individual decisions.
2021-06-16 11:27:06 <KipIngram   > The two things are unrelated.
2021-06-16 11:27:37 <KipIngram   > As an example, don't impose a minimum wage.  Let the economy work that out.  If some people wind up with too little money, give them some via a direct redistribution.
2021-06-16 11:27:50 <KipIngram   > Don't try to coerce the economy into giving it to them - you won't wind up with the result you wanted.
2021-06-16 11:27:53 <neuro`      > They are related since everything in life is monetized (or part of the economic system).
2021-06-16 11:28:07 <neuro`      > Including the right to drink clean water, or shelter.
2021-06-16 11:28:16 <KipIngram   > What I mean is that we can address the suffering problem by simply taxing in some money and paying it out through welfare programs.
2021-06-16 11:28:29 <KipIngram   > Directly.  There is no need to try to "steer the economy" into producing that effect.
2021-06-16 11:28:35 <KipIngram   > Just DO IT, via direct government action.
2021-06-16 11:28:40 <KipIngram   > Let the economy do its thing.
2021-06-16 11:29:11 <KipIngram   > Just impose very  high taxes on "large" economic entities, so that they choose voluntarily to split themselves up to avoid those taxes.
2021-06-16 11:29:13 <cess11      > i agree that people that have too little money or other resources should be able to just take it from the most enriched, but the state is in the way and has very powerful weapons to stop them
2021-06-16 11:29:17 <KipIngram   > And otherwise, hands off the economy.
2021-06-16 11:29:46 <cess11      > large corporations just invent debts and costs and pay taxes if they want to
2021-06-16 11:29:48 <KipIngram   > I don't think people should be able to "just take it."  I think that the social process, via government, should mandate that redistribution.
2021-06-16 11:30:07 <KipIngram   > And the goal should not, cannot, be to have everyone wind up with equal income.
2021-06-16 11:30:10 <KipIngram   > That will break the system.
2021-06-16 11:30:13 <cess11      > right, so by direct redistribution you meant a very indirect one
2021-06-16 11:30:23 <KipIngram   > The goal is to lift the impoverished above the poverty line.
2021-06-16 11:30:42 <KipIngram   > No, it would be direct - I just mean it would be implemented by the government.
2021-06-16 11:31:06 <cess11      > that's indirect, it's not the needy directly taking what they need, it's begging the state to do it for them
2021-06-16 11:31:13 <KipIngram   > I feel like what I'm trying to say here is very simple, but people keep complicating it.
2021-06-16 11:31:21 <cbridge     > <cmtptr> <cess11> i agree that people that have too little money or other resources should be able to just take it from the most enriched
2021-06-16 11:31:31 <cbridge     > <cmtptr> holy shit, so you are just straight up in favor of theft
2021-06-16 11:31:45 <KipIngram   > Surely that's not what he's saying - surely a word was left out there.
2021-06-16 11:31:58 <KipIngram   > An individual won't limit  his "taking" if it's up to him.
2021-06-16 11:32:10 <KipIngram   > The amount of redistribution should be a social / politicla decision.
2021-06-16 11:32:17 <cess11      > yeah, if you either need to live in starvation and misery or steal, you should steal and that's fine
2021-06-16 11:32:23 <cess11      > life is more important than property
2021-06-16 11:32:27 <KipIngram   > As I said, we should attempt to lift people below the poverty line above it.
2021-06-16 11:32:34 <cbridge     > <cmtptr> then fuck you
2021-06-16 11:32:40 <cbridge     > <cmtptr> we will never agree
2021-06-16 11:32:43 <KipIngram   > And I don't mean some line that exists today - I mean a fair and equitable "poverty line."
2021-06-16 11:33:04 <KipIngram   > Ok, I think I'll bow out now - starting to turn ugly.
2021-06-16 11:33:10 <cess11      > if you think dead things are more important than living people you're striving for a world without life
2021-06-16 11:33:15 <KipIngram   > I'll be back later, guys.  Try to behave.  :-)
2021-06-16 11:33:54 <cbridge     > <cmtptr> cess11, maybe try surviving without directly and deliberately harming others
2021-06-16 11:34:28 <neuro`      > (Or indirectly and unintentionally)
2021-06-16 11:34:52 <cbridge     > <cmtptr> sure, but that's not what's being discussed at the moment
2021-06-16 11:34:54 <neuro`      > Also swearing is not cool, it's just harming healthy discussion and exchange of opinions.
2021-06-16 11:35:09 <cbridge     > <cmtptr> this subject warrants swearing
2021-06-16 11:35:27 <neuro`      > I'll surely think about the points I was able to hear for a while, which would not be possible if someone had swore earlier
2021-06-16 11:35:56 <cbridge     > <iv4nshm4k0v> I recall there were a number of customs in medievaltimes related to 'stealing.'  Highway robbery, for example, was, per se, considered much less of a crime than stealing in secre
2021-06-16 11:36:33 <neuro`      > Anyway, now I'll go and eat some nice dinner with the "hard earned money" I made thanks to me being an obnoxious code monkey.
2021-06-16 11:36:45 <cess11      > where's the harm in stealing from someone who's already rich?
2021-06-16 11:37:22 <neuro`      > Sounds tricky and problematic, like a hacky/bludgeon solution for an engineering problem.
2021-06-16 11:37:26 <cess11      > it's not like it implies they'll end up in misery because someone took a hundred bucks and bought a month's worth of food or housing
2021-06-16 11:37:28 <cbridge     > <iv4nshm4k0v> and similarly, there were customs that pretty much said "it's not theft if the beggar was starving."
2021-06-16 11:38:13 <cbridge     > <cmtptr> cess11, why can't you earn a hundred bucks without stealing it?
2021-06-16 11:38:21 <cess11      > sure, abolishing economic classes and bs jobs would be a more sophisticated solution
2021-06-16 11:38:34 <cess11      > maybe i am discriminated against
2021-06-16 11:38:50 <cbridge     > <cmtptr> doubt it
2021-06-16 11:39:07 <cess11      > you doubt there is discrimination in the world?
2021-06-16 11:39:09 <neuro`      > Need to be a bit realistic, stealing doesn't sound like it would solve anything fundamentally.
2021-06-16 11:39:11 <cbridge     > <cmtptr> cess11, what if they try to defend their property?
2021-06-16 11:40:04 <cess11      > if they try to keep people in misery and starvation? they should of course be opposed
2021-06-16 11:40:54 <cbridge     > <cmtptr> cess11, nobody ever said anyone was keeping others in misery and starvation.  so far the discussion has merely been around a wealthy person
2021-06-16 11:41:59 <cbridge     > <cmtptr> cess11, you are trying to justify violence against others for your own gain.  this is fundamentally wrong
2021-06-16 11:42:04 <cess11      > if someone is caring for someone disabled and don't have the option to sell labour but can either steal from people that are rich or relatively poor, the best alternative is obviously to steal from the rich person
2021-06-16 11:42:20 <neuro`      > I think the wealthy is doing that by not letting the poor drink fresh water, or grow their food, because they own everything that's imaginable in life (except air?)
2021-06-16 11:43:08 <cbridge     > <cmtptr> no, none of these things have been established in this conversation.  you are just making up hypotheticals in your own head and expecting me to empthize with them
2021-06-16 11:43:50 <cbridge     > <iv4nshm4k0v> "You need this,  While I need that,  They would sell us air if it were bad.  We can’t take anymore,  We need to settle the score,  They put their guns to our heads and tell us
2021-06-16 11:45:24 <cess11      > nah, there really are people that care for relatives on a fulltime basis and have very little time to spend in labour markets, that's not hypothetical
2021-06-16 11:46:11 <cess11      > commonly they can survive due to the empathy among their peers, that make relatively big sacrifices compared to what the obscenely powerful elites would have to do
2021-06-16 11:46:20 <cbridge     > <cmtptr> this conversation is over.  you have a reading comprehension problem, among other issues
2021-06-16 11:47:30 <cess11      > fine
2021-06-16 11:47:54 <siraben     > lol what's with the ad-hominem attacks cbridge
2021-06-16 11:48:06 <neuro`      > It's just a bot :)
2021-06-16 11:48:27 <cess11      > i think it doesn't transfer messages that contain the word cbridge either
2021-06-16 11:49:04 <crc         > cess11 correct, cbridge doesn't transfer messages with the word cbridge in them
2021-06-16 11:49:42 <siraben     > crc: I wonder if there should be a shorter ignore word cbridge
2021-06-16 11:49:49 <siraben     > what's the regex you use? cbridge
2021-06-16 11:49:59 <neuro`      > Does this mean the last bunch of messages were not transferred and I look like I'm talking to myself from the other end of the network?
2021-06-16 11:50:50 <siraben     > probably so cbridge
2021-06-16 11:51:14 <crc         > neuro`: slightly :)
2021-06-16 11:51:18 <siraben     > I won't ask crc to ignore my nick on cbridge for now, I'll just be conscious and say cbridge when I need to
2021-06-16 11:51:26 <crc         > no regex in the bot
2021-06-16 11:51:40 <crc         > I've not written a regex system yet
2021-06-16 11:52:15 <crc         > just checks via:  'cbridge s:contains/string?
2021-06-16 11:52:44 <neuro`      > Regex with Forth is on my deep todo list.
2021-06-16 11:53:47 <cess11      > was years ago i looked into it but there is some good literature on fsm in forth, should be easy to find
2021-06-16 11:56:40 <cbridge     > -!- ChanServ changed mode/#forth -> +o  mark4
2021-06-16 11:57:09 <cbridge     > -!- ChanServ changed mode/#forth -> +o  cmtptr
2021-06-16 11:57:16 <cbridge     > -!- ChanServ changed mode/#forth -> +o  veltas
2021-06-16 12:21:39 <cbridge     > -!- cmtptr changed mode/#forth -> -o  cmtptr
2021-06-16 12:23:13 <cbridge     > -!- ChanServ changed mode/#forth -> +o  ChanServ
2021-06-16 12:43:42 <cbridge     > -!- ChanServ changed mode/#forth -> +o  ChanServ
2021-06-16 12:55:43 <cbridge     > -!- ChanServ changed mode/#forth -> +o  ChanServ
2021-06-16 12:57:34 <siraben     > lol the current list of channels on leenode http://ix.io/3q9b cbridge
2021-06-16 12:57:59 <neuro`      > https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E4ASGDPVgAIHtht?format=jpg&name=medium
2021-06-16 12:58:25 <imode       > neuro`: where's that from.
2021-06-16 12:58:30 <siraben     > where's this from? cbridge
2021-06-16 13:02:43 <neuro`      > No idea, but that's valid for most "successful" companies.
2021-06-16 13:03:03 <neuro`      > Including the ones I worked for because I freedly chose to work for them
2021-06-16 13:03:08 <neuro`      > freely*
2021-06-16 13:09:16 <neuro`      > The best thing about logic is that once you pick certain arbitrary axioms, you can prove anything as true.
2021-06-16 13:10:11 <siraben     > neuro`: yeah, inconsistency, haha
2021-06-16 13:10:14 <siraben     > how did logic arise just now
2021-06-16 13:14:16 <crc         > siraben: I don't see #forth on that, though I do see someone's grabbed #retro cbridge
2021-06-16 13:14:28 <remexre     > neuro`: https://inutile.club/estatis/falso/
2021-06-16 13:17:15 <cess11      > remexre: lovely
2021-06-16 13:20:22 <neuro`      > Haha I love the FAQ
2021-06-16 13:22:10 <Zarutian_HTC> I thought Gödel inconsitency came about because of an logic error in recursive definition. Prepositions must have ordinality, meaning when you compose them together you increase the ord
2021-06-16 13:24:39 <cess11      > "Due to a political turmoil, this package was removed from the opam repository."
2021-06-16 13:24:44 <cess11      > https://github.com/clarus/falso
2021-06-16 13:25:59 <cess11      > sadly i can't find where this turmoil took place
2021-06-16 13:29:08 <Zarutian_HTC> these repositories. Arent they mostly just mapping package names&versionNrs to cryptographic hashes of their tarballs?
2021-06-16 13:30:55 <siraben     > cess11: lol, political turmoil cbridge
2021-06-16 13:31:24 <Zarutian_HTC> (and git urls and where aforesaid tarballs are hosted)
2021-06-16 13:31:30 <siraben     > Zarutian_HTC: I can't comment on ordinality, but Gödel's second incompeleteness theorem talks about logics that exceed a certain level of expressivity
2021-06-16 13:31:35 <siraben     > that is, Peano withmetic
2021-06-16 13:32:24 <siraben     > then it asserts either PA is inconsistent or there is a true (wrt. to all models) number-theoretic fact not provable in PA
2021-06-16 13:32:35 <siraben     > but you can't even show PAs consistency within itself!
2021-06-16 13:32:43 <siraben     > PA's*
2021-06-16 13:33:53 <cbridge     > <iv4nshm4k0v> Zarutian_HTC: Conceptually.  Though Git uses its own format; AIUI, it can both hold full tree contents and deltas to the same.  (And git-archive(1) outputs the respective .tar if
2021-06-16 13:34:50 <cess11      > not sure how the opam repos work, never got far enough in ocaml to care about publishing stuff
2021-06-16 13:35:51 <cbridge     > <iv4nshm4k0v> Ah, there’s something on top of Git…
2021-06-16 13:37:15 <neuro`      > Excuse my ignorance about math theory, but I thought that website is a parody.
2021-06-16 13:41:37 <cess11      > it's a joke
2021-06-16 13:42:28 <cess11      > apparently they also managed to exploit a bug in coq to implement the p=np axiom there, which is also funny
2021-06-16 15:34:38 <siraben     > neuro`: oh it is a parody lol
2021-06-16 15:34:39 <siraben     > https://github.com/clarus/falso/blob/master/All.v
2021-06-16 15:34:39 <siraben     > the point is, despite Coq being a theorem prover and all, there's a bug in the VM such that when you have a datatype with more than 256 constructors, you can get the first constructor and last constructor to
2021-06-16 15:34:39 <siraben     > it's far easier to prove something that's actually false with mathematical prose than in Coq, for sure ;)
2021-06-16 15:34:40 <siraben     > fortunately such critical bugs are exceedingly rare (last I heard maybe only 2 per year), since Coq has a small logical core
2021-06-16 16:13:03 <cbridge     > -!- ChanServ changed mode/#forth -> +o  ChanServ
2021-06-16 16:20:01 <cbridge     > -!- ChanServ changed mode/#forth -> +o  ChanServ
2021-06-16 17:39:17 <cbridge     > <mark4> why is a printf of an int16_t with a %04x specifier being printed as FFFFFFFF
2021-06-16 17:39:21 <cbridge     > <mark4> not FFFF ?
2021-06-16 17:39:21 <cbridge     > <mark4> fuckiing hate c
2021-06-16 17:43:30 <remexre     > default size is int, which is probably 32 bits
2021-06-16 17:43:33 <remexre     > %04hx
2021-06-16 17:43:52 <remexre     > h = half-size, hh = half-half-size is the mnemonic I use
2021-06-16 17:44:20 <remexre     > but then long is l, not d, so
2021-06-16 17:44:24 <remexre     > 
ACTION shrugs

2021-06-16 18:17:16 <cbridge     > <cmtptr> mark4, if you're passing stdint types to printf you should be using the inttypes.h macros for your format specifiers
2021-06-16 18:32:16 <cbridge     > <mark4> what are those? lol
2021-06-16 18:32:37 <cbridge     > <mark4> forths picured number output is way more expressive, way more intuitive
2021-06-16 18:33:14 <cbridge     > <cmtptr> int32_t may be %d on one platform but %ld on another.  the only portable way to do it is  #include <inttypes.h>   int32_t x = 123; printf("%" PRId32 "\n", x);
2021-06-16 18:34:40 <cbridge     > <cmtptr> they should have just added new format specifiers for those types, but i guess the iso committee is probably made up of people who don't actually write code
2021-06-16 18:35:09 <remexre     > this also means you can add stdint/inttypes support as an extra header provided by the compiler, rather than by the libc
2021-06-16 18:35:21 <cbridge     > <cmtptr> or rather, they probably write code but don't have to read it
2021-06-16 18:35:24 <remexre     > which could be an advantage, tho agree that it's ugly
2021-06-16 18:35:34 <cbridge     > <mark4> aha
2021-06-16 18:38:57 <cbridge     > <cmtptr> when i'm not fantisizing about writing a forth, sometimes i also fantisize about writing my own dialect of c unhindered by backwards compatibility and adding a few neat features of my
2021-06-16 18:43:19 <cbridge     > <mark4> someone was writing a dual staack c
2021-06-16 18:48:50 <cbridge     > <cmtptr> the problem with c, at least for me, and with so many other things, is that it's good enough.  so the motiviation just isn't there
2021-06-16 19:11:47 <dave0       > maw
2021-06-16 19:13:34 <crc         >  maw dave0
2021-06-16 19:13:53 <dave0       > maw crc
2021-06-16 19:28:56 <cbridge     > <crab> sup sup
2021-06-16 19:33:02 <crc         > Hi crab
2021-06-16 19:33:45 <cbridge     > <crab> what's happening
2021-06-16 19:37:32 <crc         > I've finished my channel logging bot, so I'm getting back to working on my editor
2021-06-16 21:39:37 <cbridge     > <crab> what sort of editor shall you have?
2021-06-16 21:42:02 <imode       > I'm interested as well.
2021-06-16 22:09:20 <crc         > it's not particularly fancy, just a basic line editor for files, built around my current workflow w/programming
2021-06-16 22:11:00 <crc         > it's written in forth, runs external programs written in forth, and is somewhat modular
2021-06-16 22:11:48 <crc         > by which I mean that certain actions, like viewing file contents, are handled by smaller, separate programs invoked by commands in the editor
2021-06-16 22:21:44 <siraben     > hello all cbridge
2021-06-16 22:22:59 <remexre     > howdy
2021-06-16 22:32:52 <imode       > what would a "shared forth environment" look like, I wonder.
2021-06-16 22:51:48 <crc         > it'd be interesting to do. I have some plans to exploring that in the future (a system of networked forth instances, sharing a common memory pool and blocks replicated across the network, but sepa
2021-06-16 22:53:13 <crc         > It's a longer term project though; completing my local offline environment is higher priority for me at this point
2021-06-16 23:01:18 <cbridge     > <crab> ah ok
2021-06-16 23:01:54 <cbridge     > <crab> are you familiar with the sam editor? I found it more flexible than a line based approach
2021-06-16 23:01:58 <cbridge     > <crab> and still is pretty simple
2021-06-16 23:03:33 <crc         > I have used sam a little
2021-06-16 23:05:27 <crc         > but only in a graphical context. I think it can be used in a terminal, but haven't tried it in that case
2021-06-16 23:05:50 <cbridge     > <crab> I haven't been using it on a daily basis but I'd definitely be using it before ed in scripts if ed didn't ship with everything
2021-06-16 23:11:36 <crc         > a lot of sam is built around use of regex, which I don't have yet.
2021-06-16 23:12:20 <cbridge     > <crab> fair enough
2021-06-16 23:14:13 <crc         > the other thing is use of a mouse, which I try to avoid. I'm working in a terminal environment, I don't have a mouse or any graphical display on my main system.
2021-06-16 23:15:29 <crc         > I expect to study sam in more detail whenever I actually get around to implementing regex.
2021-06-16 23:33:09 <cbridge     > <crab> yeah even without a mouse sam is quite nice I think