>It's a joke. If Neovim is the modern Vim, then Helix is post-modern.
It's interesting that postmodern is so often used by people, perhaps less familiar with the arts and the humanities, to mean "an update to modern" or a progression thereof. They use it in a strictly literal sense, eschewing the precise meaning of the term they're referencing by mere addition of discontinuity as incremental difference.
Obviously, there's little impact to this. The term is hardly degraded by engineers advertising to other engineers. It looks a touch unread, but then again we have people like Thiel and Luckey misinterpreting Tolkien, so again it's hardly the most egregious example. I guess it just jumped out to me because I was hoping to see something creative truly postmodern.
That jumped out at me too the first time I ran into Helix making this joke, and I was also disappointed to find that they meant modern++.
That said, I’m not sure I agree with your assessment that it’s wrong, exactly. Postmodernism did indeed follow modernism and come into being as a reaction to modernism. So I think “postmodernism” has a naive and original sense of being “what follows modernism”. Decades (so many at this point!) of discourse have added layers to that and undermined it and generally made it more complex. But the underlying meaning of the term remains.
(If your instinct is to respond with arguments about how works not limited to late 20th century western culture can be nonetheless classified as postmodern, I hear you, but the fact that the term itself was only coined post modernism remains, and is all I’m pointing to.)
Personally, I get more hung up on people using “modern” to mean “new”. Then to use “postmodern” to mean “more new” while to my ears (eyes) it means “dated af” is even funnier and more jarring.
Helix, the first editor to not believe in grand narratives. Helix, the relativist editor. Helix, now updated with the latest from Foucault and Derrida!
>Postmodernism did indeed follow modernism and come into being as a reaction to modernism.
I definitely agree that, strictly speaking, postmodernism is a somewhat loose label for an eclectic set of ideas and expressions following modernism. My issue was not with the label being denotatively incorrect – that postmodernism implies a deliberate and retrospective relation to what is labeled "modern" – but rather that the term invokes a spirit that is utterly missing from the project.
There is no rejection of teleological narratives, and in fact by misapplying this term acts to reinforcing them. It doesn't meaningful critique the projects its in conversation with except in terms that reinforce the underlying assumptions that motivated their production. It critiques Vim in terms of codebase complexity and multiplexity, and these concepts are nothing if not deeply familiar. Even with regards to the concept of coding as the composition and production of language, Helix only looks to make that process more efficient, rather than examine how this process reproduces itself, or how intent is masked and produced through abstraction and reference to the work of other programmers/authors.
I am not saying that it should have done that. It is by all means a perfectly good editor. But a perfectly good editor does not a postmodern editor make.
If anything, one could argue that the process of vibecoding is more recognizably postmodern, especially as a strict rejection of the modernist belief system that produces that process of coding. Its nondeterminism rejects efficient, coherent processes. It requires one to reimagine production as its ends, rather than by beginning with conventional initialization rituals. Its discursive rather than dictatorial.
Not to say vibecoding is the end of coding or even the way "forward", just as to say postmodernism is not the teleological end to thought.
Except that, from that talk, Larry clearly has some idea about what the term postmodernism means in art & culture and isn’t just using it to mean “modern++”.
I mean its fair to say that its deliberately on the nose. However, I would argue that despite being definitionally correct, Palantir still represents a misinterpretation by discarding the works in their whole. I brought it up because postmodern does correctly imply a reaction to what is "modern", but its also a body of work in its own right.
This is not to say that Tolkien's authorial intent is final, nor necessarily discernible, but we are obligated to examine the palantirs' presentation as not just a passive object with certain, defined qualities, but as devices that have their own consequential histories within the narrative. Thiel naming his company after a tool presented textually as fallible, misleading, and myopic (in addition to its obvious power) with ostensibly no desire to attach such connotations to the company requires, in my mind, at least a superficial reading. We can even disregard the fact that these were mostly tools for an evil opposed by Tolkien, and not make the (valid) argument that their presentation within the text is could be considered direct argument in opposition to their creation. I personally think that to build a company and name it after a work that argues against that company's mission/purpose requires misinterpretation of the reference material, both in terms of poor comprehension of metaphor and as a poor response to the text and the body of discourse that surrounds and infuses it.
They are Tolkien fans and yet they are building the devices (Palantir, Anduril) which evil will eventually use to dominate. Palantir is well-named but tragic that a fan would build it. Anduril is poorly-named as it is the sword used to combat industrial power rather than represent it.
It's a good video. He based his work on / followed the protocol described in the Nature paper published by the lab mentioned in the article (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25476).
I think this is placing the blame on the victims rather than the policies that are actually allowing these things to happen. Like the PI clearly made a mistake, but it's a minor one whose consequences have been made wholly disproportionate due to xenophobic policy.
He's even quoted as admitting as much in the article:
>No one at Harvard feels worse than Dr. Peshkin. Again and again, he has asked himself why he allowed Ms. Petrova to take the risk of carrying the samples. He rereads the text exchange he had with Ms. Petrova while she was sitting on the plane.
Also Dr. Peshkin didn't send her, she was already there for vacation:
>Dr. Peshkin worried she would burn out. He was relieved when she told him she was taking a vacation to France, where the pianist Andras Schiff was giving a concert. She bought theater tickets and planned trips to see friends from Moscow, now scattered across Europe.
>“I said, ‘Well, you’re there,’” Dr. Peshkin said. “Why don’t you get this package?”
So not only is this lack of empathy it's also mischaracterizing the situation.
>I think this is placing the blame on the victims rather than the policies that are actually allowing these things to happen.
If you're a fisherman on a lake and a fish just jumps in your boat, is it your fault or the fish's fault? You were just doing your fisherman job.
You(individually) can't change the bad policies of the country you emigrated to because you're not a citizen with voting rights, right? But you can adapt your behavior to not fall in the trap of those bad policies, right?
All you have to do is lay low and not break any laws or do things that attract attention of the authorities, like you know, travelling with undeclared embryos, which is not something average travelers usually do.
"Yeah but your country's laws are stupid, so give me a break" is not a defense that ever works for immigrants, which means they're at the mercy of trigger happy border enforcement agents who are just following the law, which says they can deport anyone for any reason they see fit.
I think many western people with powerful passports don't realize, that when you're a guest in a country (especially with a weak passport) you really need to be a lot more paranoid than the locals on the rules and regulations of the host country since you'll have no local rights and no embassy to bail you out if you fuck up. The speed limit says 100? Well, you drive at 90 just to be sure. Yeah, it sucks, but that's life.
> All you have to do is lay low and not break any laws or do things that attract attention of the authorities
More likely what you suggest is necessary but not sufficient. The Administration claimed that all of the people sent to the El Salvador prison were violent criminals. In fact, 90% were no such thing. I think you are overestimating the degree to which the rule of law - due process in particular- is now operative in the United States.
You're missing the point. Obviously people need to be careful right now. But framing this situation as the fault of victims rather than the fault of bad policy makes it seem like bad things things only happen in response to conscious decisions and to an extent it absolves the policymakers from responsibility. It dilutes productive discussion regarding bad policy and instead frames all injustices as the consequence of breaking the law.
Like HN users probably would broadly agree that advising people to "just don't act shady" doesn't make the PATRIOT act okay. Nor is it particularly helpful because both the scope of what can be considered suspicious or unlawful is well beyond what a normal person can be expected to considered their actions. The average person commits 3 felonies a day, the enforcement of which is essentially discretionary and means that anyone can be made subject to arbitrary punitive measures.
Certainly there's a frustration with how impotent one can feel about the law and politics, I don't disagree that we should try to control what we can and avoid putting ourselves into compromising situations. But that said I don't think criticizing the victims of injustice helps anyone or is ever the right thing to do.
You always need to be careful when it comes to customs really. Some minor things like certain foods and OTC medicines can have big ramifications in many countries, including losing your visa. If you're a business person counting on using a multi-year visa to do your job, you can screw up your career by getting it revoked.
Of course I think people should get second chances, especially naive students. The professor should also have been mindful of this risk and made sure she complied with the rules too.
Completely agree, I think that an abundance of caution is extremely important to practice when engaging with these systems, especially given the political climate. I just think that discussing counterfactuals in this particular case is unproductive and the original comment needlessly insensitive.
>But framing this situation as the fault of victims rather than the fault of bad policy
I see my message hasn't gotten through, so I will repeat it one last time.
You can't change the policy on the spot just because you think it's bad. Therefore as a traveler you must adapt to the policy of the destination country, even if you think it's bad, not the other way around. That's how it works in every democratic country. Go to Germany or anywhere else and start braking laws that you think are bad (and there are plenty of those) and see where that gets you. A friend of mine got 3 fines on his business trip to Germany he swore he's never setting foot there again.
If you dislike the policies of a foreign country, just don't go there, simple. Don't emigrate to a country and then complain about them throwing the book at you when you break a law, because as a non-citizen, nobody will care about your situation. Sad but true.
Yeah as an immigrant this sucks, but this is how the world works everywhere. Until you become a naturalized citizen, you have to adapt to the host country's stupid laws to the T as you're always more vulnerable than the citizens.
It was not a fish. It was people doing active decision to abuse power. Both on low level (agents) and top level (president and his sociopathic circle).
They are not force of nature and it is 100% reasonable to blame them and only them.
I mean I still think this is a good idea. Seems like a combination of poor communication and probably an incomplete understanding of edge cases but illegal parking is a huge problem in NYC and even though there's a snitching program I think the scale can't be addressed without some level of automation. Obviously there are concerns with these sorts of things like misuse of data and whatnot but I don't think we're living in 1984 just because red light cameras exist.
I mean it shouldn't be enough to publish in nature. The whole point of science is that it can be validated. It's totally fine that they're hosting their models for free on closed servers with limits, even though it's not exactly the most ergonomic.
It was already validated by winning CASP and the paper by Paul Adams (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41592-023-02087-4) which, although it reads like criticism is actually high praise. Everything the model can do, will be (or already has) replicated by the open community.
Also, for work of the highest art (of which AF3 is an example), publication in nature really is the fundamental unit of scientific currency because it ensures all their competitors will get hyped up and work extra-hard to disprove it.
My statement is correct; both AF papers were published in nature, and both won casp. AF3 is superior to AF2 which means if adams wrote another paper, it would be on increasingly less interesting fine details.
To be clear, I don't think anyone distrusts the benchmarking work nor even the reported architecture, but also no one should need to operate on faith when it comes to work that presents itself as groundbreaking. Probably the first thing everyone did when they tested the model was run a sequence w/ a known cryo structure, but that's insufficient for how deepmind knows researchers will use the model.
> Also, for work of the highest art (of which AF3 is an example), publication in nature really is the fundamental unit of scientific currency because it ensures all their competitors will get hyped up and work extra-hard to disprove it.
IDK about disproving it, again nobody is distrusting the work, but let's also not pretend that a prestige journal is necessary to promote AF3. They could publish in the Columbia Undergraduate Science Journal and get the same amount of press. And to be clear the controversy has largely center on Nature for allowing AF3 to get away with more than they would most other projects, and the wasted time and effort it's taking to reimplement the work so people can add to it. FWIW an author did state that they're attempting to release the code but that's not like a binding vow.
Finally, AF3 strictly speaking didn't win CASP (it almost certainly would) but again this isn't necessarily the point when people talk about validation. The diffusion process does seem to result in notable edge cases (most obviously in IDPs and IDRs but also non-existent self-interactions), it's not a straight improvement in that respect.
I didn't see anyone saying induced demand in and of itself is the thing being avoided, just that induced demand for driving caused by highway construction is being avoided, as this implies that traffic won't be alleviated by increased capacity.
Induced demand can be positive, yeah, but I think induced demand is more complicated. It concerns a positive feedback loop phenomena that leads to the saturation of a system beyond its intended capacity. Like more people taking the metro is good, but more people taking it than it can handle can degrade their impression if it.
Induced demand isn't necessarily complicated. The simple answer is transaction costs.
If people are willing to spend an hour in traffic to go to the beach, you are basically stuck with that travel time. You can only increase the number of people that end up going.
I meant complicated as in not necessarily good/bad. I agree it's not complicated in the general sense that it's an intrinsic part of supply and demand.
That said it's definitely more complicated in how to article is discussing it. The article is clearly talking about a Braess's Paradox-like situation where an individual's optimal decision incentivized by changes in the system is worse for more participants than the previous system, due to anticipatory and dynamic effects. This is inherently more complicated to measure and predict.
I feel like stock counts haven't really been considered in this modeling which is fairly non-trivial as each outcome isn't as binary as rock-paper-scissors. There's an argument to be made that if Zain is locked in and you have both Aklo and Cody on your bench, you should send Aklo in first even if he might not win outright, because if he takes a stock or 2, then it gives better odds that Cody can win with 3 or 4 stocks remaining and sweep the rest of the team.
Idk, this article seems like it's from the perspective of someone either entirely removed from subculture, or like, just failed to think clearly about the intersection of online spaces and identity.
The main point of the article seems to argue that lacking some cohesive "box" is making it harder for kids to find a community. And even if this _may_ have been a thing before (idk, maybe it was invented by John Hughes movies, it's before my time wtv), I feel like the argument is just pretty weak. It privileges clique-identity over a more diverse, less monolithic identification, and it assumes that community can only found w/in these cliques.
I'm also not sure why the author spends so much time centering on aesthetics as if that's the be-all and end-all of internet culture, and its fragmentation being that which is preventing self-identity. The lack of physical third spaces is indeed a problem, but the kids are still having fun lmfao. The internet has just exposed people to so many more interesting things.
>>Post-modern?!
>It's a joke. If Neovim is the modern Vim, then Helix is post-modern.
It's interesting that postmodern is so often used by people, perhaps less familiar with the arts and the humanities, to mean "an update to modern" or a progression thereof. They use it in a strictly literal sense, eschewing the precise meaning of the term they're referencing by mere addition of discontinuity as incremental difference.
Obviously, there's little impact to this. The term is hardly degraded by engineers advertising to other engineers. It looks a touch unread, but then again we have people like Thiel and Luckey misinterpreting Tolkien, so again it's hardly the most egregious example. I guess it just jumped out to me because I was hoping to see something creative truly postmodern.
reply