> you're going to be writing the (name value) form for 99% of it.
That's exactly the part that is wrong with Guix, and Scheme in general. Scheme has associated lists, they are written as '((name . value) ...), but since that's too ugly everybody makes macro wrappers around them to get them down to just (name value). But that means you aren't dealing with an obvious data type anymore, but with whatever the macro produces and if you want to manipulate that you need special tools yet again. And then you have record-type and named arguments which are different things yet again, but all serve the same name->value function as an associated list. Names themselves are sometimes symbols, sometimes keywords, and sometimes actual values. Same with lambda, sometimes you need to supply a function, other times there is a macro that allows you to supply a block of code.
It's like the opposite of the Zen of Python, there are always three different ways to do a thing and none of them as any real advantage over the other, they are just different for no good reason and intermixed in the same code base.
I have never seen anything else use the (name value) syntax. You do deal with obvious data types, the REPL tells you exactly what those data types are (records, in the case of Guix). Schemes outside of Guile don't even have keywords, much less named arguments.
Are you complaining that a language has both associative containers and structs? Which one do you advocate for removing in Python to keep up the precious "Zen"?
That's dead on arrival. The domain name system is one of the core reasons why everything has become so centralized in the first place. If one wants to fix anything wrong with the Internet, finding a better way to naming things should be the first step.
Instead of interacting with the cloud model directly, run a simple local model to interact with the cloud model and have it filter out all the ads before they reach you.
This is already what the chatbots do when it comes to interacting with rest of the Web, instead of you visiting websites yourself, they collect the information from the websites for you and present it in a format of your choice without the websites ads.
I don't see the ad model working out for chatbots in the long run given that those AI models already are the perfect ad filter.
I use Gemini for that. Split the PDF into 50 page chunks, throw it into aistudio and ask it to convert it. A couple of 1000 pages can be done with the free tier.
That has been tried for almost half a century in the form of Cyc[1] and never accomplished much.
The proper solution here is to provide the LLM with more context, context that will likely be collected automatically by wearable devices, screen captures and similar pervasive technology in the not so distant future.
This kind of quick trick questions are exactly the same thing humans fail at if you just ask them out of the blue without context.
Newpipe doesn't clutter the screen with constant recommendations. You can just subscribe to the channels you want, get updates when they release a new video and that's it. It's a much more focused experience than regular Youtube.
All the legal uncertainty problems the cookie law produces aside, the core problem with the law is that it's fundamentally stupid. Cookies are a client side feature: You store the cookie, not the server. If you don't want to store the cookie, complain to your browser, that's the software responsible here. But instead of fixing the issue in the one place actually responsible, we make laws that force millions of websites to adopt.
> "well what specific laws would I write to combat addictive design?"
Expand the GDPR "Right to data portability" to publicly published content for third parties, i.e. open up the protocols so you can have third party clients that themselves can decide how they want to present the data. And add a realtime requirement, since at the moment companies still circumvent the original rule with a "only once every 30 days" limit.
Also add an <advertisment> HTML tag and HTTP header and force companies to declare all their ads in a proper machine readable way.
The core problem with addictive design isn't the addictive design itself, but that it's often the only way to even access the data. And when it comes to communication services that benefit from network effects, that should simply not be allowed.
It's worse than just illegal content. Copyright doesn't allow you to redistribute anything without the permission of the copyright holder. IPFS however has no means to track the author or the license of content.
That means even distributing a piece of perfectly legal Open Source becomes illegal. Unlike a tarball or even a torrent where you can bundle content and license, IPFS allows addressing individual files or blocks, thus stripping the license from the content, which most licenses forbid. This does not even require an intentional action on the user, but happens automatically by partial content landing in your cache.
That's exactly the part that is wrong with Guix, and Scheme in general. Scheme has associated lists, they are written as '((name . value) ...), but since that's too ugly everybody makes macro wrappers around them to get them down to just (name value). But that means you aren't dealing with an obvious data type anymore, but with whatever the macro produces and if you want to manipulate that you need special tools yet again. And then you have record-type and named arguments which are different things yet again, but all serve the same name->value function as an associated list. Names themselves are sometimes symbols, sometimes keywords, and sometimes actual values. Same with lambda, sometimes you need to supply a function, other times there is a macro that allows you to supply a block of code.
It's like the opposite of the Zen of Python, there are always three different ways to do a thing and none of them as any real advantage over the other, they are just different for no good reason and intermixed in the same code base.
reply