> accused Scott of hypocrisy, discrimination, prejudice, insecurity, ego, and gatekeeping.
It was also a transparent confabulation - the accusations were clearly inaccurate and misguided but they were made honestly and sincerely, as an attempt to "seek justice" after witnessing perceived harm. Usually we don't call such behavior "shaming" and "bullying", we excuse it and describe it simply as trying one's best to do the right thing.
We do not call inaccurate and misguided transparent confabulation trying one's best to do the right thing. And honestly and sincerely was a category mistake.
I think OP could be just as astute as you meant. They probably know that Altman is engaging in marketing, but still tried to make a case that it shouldn't be a good strategy and instead illustrates his character. Not that I disagree, as people could see the unnecessary drama as a sign of immature behavior and a negative net result in the long term, regardless if it generates press today. As many other commenters remarked, they will from now think twice about trusting Altman's ventures in the future in light of this long-winded tweet.
My problem with stock photos is that unless it is clearly a stock image, it can mislead. For example, when looking up information on the solar panels that Jimmy Carter had installed on the White House, the article had a stock photo of a modern photo-voltaic panel. So I was initially confused, as what was described was a solar collector that concentrates the sun's heat to provide hot water for the kitchen. Which makes a lot more sense of why it wasn't re-installed during some roof renovations under Regan (the initial purpose of it was more to inspire the nation, that wouldn't be served much by re-installing it after it had been removed for roof work as the original moment had passed).
the whole point of the article is that browsers should try to block popups that don't literally open a new window too. Although I doubt it's really feasible without doing it on a one-by-one basis like ad blockers
Of course, I don't disagree with you. But OP tried to refute the fact in their parent comment that using adblock is generally better than relying on browser's pop-up blocking. However, adblock does no worse than pop-up blocking in the specific case of non-window pop-ups, making it irrelevant in the context.
And I agree that these types of ads remain a hard to solve problem today.
Providers such as OpenAI have client keys so your client application can call the providers directly. Many developers prefer them as they save roundtrip costs and latency.
Do those still only work for the voice APIs though?
I've been hoping they would extend that to other APIs, and I'd love to see the same kind of mechanism for other providers.
UPDATE: I dug I to this a bit more and as far as I can tell OpenAI are still the only major vendor with a consumer key mechanism and it still only works for their realtime voice APIs.
> Here’s a quick test. Try to find the function definition here
It's funny that in the first example where the author asked the viewers to find the function definition, I was able to do so faster with the colorful syntax highlighting he considered wrong.
To recognize different elements of code is more than just colors, but actual syntaxes of the language and the general shapes of code blocks.
It's a matter of taste, and in my decades of programming, I've found colleagues and many teams trying for all kinds of fancy themes only to come back with a "boring" one, like Material Theme, which is also my main driver nowadays.
I think the author had some good ideas, particularly around literals (what he called constants), rejection of the requirement for equal brightness, and emphasizing comments. The author is more than welcome to bring his version of perfect syntax highlighting to the market of ideas. Its adoption should prove it if his idea wins.
I had the same experience -- it was way easier for me to find it with the rainbow highlighting (even though I already knew where to look when it came to the monochrome highlighting!).
The author later asks what color class definitions were. I think this fundamentally gets wrong how syntax highlighting helps humans. I don't have a clue what color anything is in my favored highlighting, but my brain does incredible pattern recognition to help me digest code in it without me consciously knowing what color does what.
So his arguments for why there's a problem don't hold up, but that doesn't mean there is not in fact a problem.
Yeah I certainly dont' pay attention to or remember what color means what.
I am however in that weird minority that prefers light themes, and I do also prefer minimal syntax highlighting. The author does have a point to an extent, but I don't think there's any one objectively better way to do it I think it's all personal preference.
I don't like the rainbow highlighting, too distracting for me, and doesn't work particularly well with light themes. I did try the author's alabaster theme in VSCode though and it highlights the wrong things for me.
(In C#) if I have var result = await SomeMethodName(param, param, param); It put both "result" and "SomeMethodName" in blue, the rest being black. I'd actually prefer it the other way around, highlight the programming language's keywords (var and await in this case) and leave my own names (result and SomeMethodName) unhighlighted.
The theme was also inconsistent. The post says we shouldn't highlight PL keywords, but the proposed theme does highlight some keywords while ignoring others.
I agree. I was baffled when I realized I was supposed to struggle with that example.
I do agree that it is harder to see the return misspelling with the more detailed syntax highlighting, but when I'm coding I'm mainly focused on the actual tokens I'm writing, and you better believe I pick up on if the syntax highlighting is showing my token as wrongly being a keyword rather than an identifier, or the wrong type of identifier. Even if I don't actually know what the colors are, it will look wrong.
Rainbow vomit syntax highlighting logically seems like a bad idea, but like many things, even though it's hard to prove that it's better, I think a lot of people will agree that it really is better. Especially with tree-sitter and LSPs giving more detailed syntax highlighting; I can feel the benefits of 'oh, that's the wrong identifier color, isn't it?' to the point where if I run into an edge case that breaks highlighting it becomes immediately noticeable.
Same here. To make a base text color more evident, the author smushed elements and lost information. There is no point to a base text color, and it's OK if everything is highlighted, as long as it is consistent.
If "everyone is getting syntax highlighting wrong", it's more likely that you're the one who is getting it wrong.
> It's funny that in the first example where the author asked the viewers to find the function definition, I was able to do so faster with the colorful syntax highlighting he considered wrong.
Same. It sort of killed the article for me. I also thought that in his resulting theme the limitation of colors would eventually trip me up. Having numbers and strings be the same color is terrible - I have noticed mistakes in the oast where numbers were erroneously attributed as strings for being enclosed in quotation marks precisely because my theme gives those different colors.
To this point, I wonder if we can go even further in the direction "it's fine to have a 'zoo' of colors on the screen... as long as we're able to rapidly scan for patterns based on the shapes of code and relative positions of those colors."
Many games (especially gacha games where one may be tracking multiple orthogonal "levels" on any given piece of inventory) compress tremendous amounts of data into a character or gear item portrait; ticks on the top, dots on the side, colored frames, etc. - all so we can pick things out in a crowd without needing to set a custom sort order.
And yet our IDEs, citing silly things like "render optimizations" and "consistency with ANSI escape codes," allow each character to have just a single foreground color, a single background color, and maybe a squiggly underline. Why stop there?
Give me the freedom to add arbitrary overlays and decorations on any given token. Give me <ruby>-style elements [0] that will let me put a little colored dot or emoji at the top right of any token that meets a certain requirement... say, a utility function, or a reference from the file that's open at the top right of my screen.
Let us swim in rainbows with sparkles flying past our eyes. We're strong swimmers.
This is like, it might've been a Veritasium video? There was some YouTube video that started with a test, and the rest was predicted on one outcome but myself and most of the audience had a different one. At worst just read the code normally, at best you can jump to specific colors
The United States has a lot of unique traits that few other countries have (American exceptionalism), birthright citizenship being just one characteristic. I'd think an executive order is just testing the water, but to change it definitively requires a constitutional amendment.
The hit piece you claimed as "mild" accused Scott of hypocrisy, discrimination, prejudice, insecurity, ego, and gatekeeping.