The one thing that had me reading to the end was the mention near the top of the environmental impact of LLMs, but he never got back to it.
I'm currently writing an onboarding doc for my team, encouraging LLM use for some tasks. (OK, well, I'm actually procrastinating by reading HN).
At the same time, I'm in a darkened office with tinfoil on the windows and a fan pointed at me because it's hell outside and it has been for weeks, and every year it seems to get hotter and hotter and we have longer and longer heatwaves.
This seems ... discordant, at a minimum.
Really, _should_ we be using these things to speed up, say, dependency updates if the cost is the planet? I wanted to know what the author thought about that.
I won't belabour the point, but I think someone needs to correct their misconceptions. You're comparing a single, average person's usage of AI in a day -- not the billions who actually use it. Then you are comparing it to an American's two-hour commute in an oversized SUV. (A commute on the Tube costs about 0.02991 kg per passenger, per kilometre.)
What about training those models? Or the usage of all of the data centres? The projections are that by 2028 a fifth of all energy consumption in the U.S. alone will be for AI.[1]
This is actually a good link. Thank you. It's usage that is the big driver, and LLMs are a big driver in emissions and other damage to the environment.
Emacs Lisp is a descendant of PDP-10 MAClisp, which makes it one of the oldest Lisp dialects still actively maintained. Whether it's version 24.5 or 30.2 doesn't make much of a difference semantically.
To be fair I think the only real differences since 1.6 you’d see are transducer versions of some of what’s in here for Clojure. The stuff expressed here is all very basic.
There is a difference with the very first line item, though minor:
"clojure --version" is available. True that transducers aren't going to be a part of this comparison.
I too am a bit surprised this made it on the front page. Mu4e is definitely niche, and I wouldn't crow about it like I do org or magit. I've only been using it for less than a month and it will be a while before I know whether it is a net win.
Also, the real test would have been my much more voluminous work email!
The HTML rendering isn't great, as you said, but you are two keystrokes from opening that email in a browser, if you have to.
And I have tweaked the config several times now, but I think that's mostly because I'm changing my (and the charity's) email, which involves a lot of shuffling about. Again, in six months, I'll have another look and decide whether it _really_ helped.
This was my second attempt to get email working on Emacs and I gave up the first time, too. I persisted this time and I _think_ it will pay off. There is the obvious danger of this becoming another "project", but I'll make a note to check-in again in six months. It's an experiment!
I've not seen the other things you mentioned. I only check for email every 10 minutes, but opening and (especially) searching for emails seem much faster than doing it in Gmail. Plus, I can do searches across email accounts, like all unreads across all three accounts. That was definitely slower in the online clients.
Finally, there's a quick ('a' then 'v') way to just open a message in a browser if the HTML is too thick.
My organization also explicitly blocks access from other clients than Microsoft Outlook, even if the credentials are correct and the protocol is supported. They also refused providing an exception, citing that I can just use the web interface via Microsoft Edge on Linux. (Which I prefer not to do for many reasons, e.g. backing up my emails locally, working offline, and authoring using native tools.)
Currently, only Thunderbird with the proprietary "OWL" extension somehow manages to connect despite the block. My understanding is that they somehow abuse the web interface to do so, instead of actually going through the proper protocols, but not sure.
If someone has another way to access Exchange servers that intentionally blocks non-Outlook clients I’d love to hear about it.
I am surprised as davmail with the Exchange protocol has worked for me since I set it up. They made offlineimap unusable but davmail works (it even has a small web client for the login when more than a month has passed). ??
Edit: they (my Uni) made offlineimap unusable, but it works with davmail.
I actually haven’t tried DavMail (but have heard about it), so if it manages to get around this sort of shenanigans I’ll happily give that a shot.
In my previous org I could also use offlineimap and msmtp to connect to their Microsoft mail server via standard protocols. But in this org I’ve so far tried the built-in Exchange support in Thunderbird as well as in Evolution Data Server based exchange clients (Evolution and KMail). All of them manage to connect to the server, kinda, but then I get an error message saying basically that my mail client is not approved and I’ll have to contact my admin to use it.
EDIT: I might add that the IT deliberately blocked non-Outlook mail clients a year ago or so, other Linux users told me that it worked fine before that. It’s supposedly a crackdown on people using shady third-party apps that they are concerned might exfiltrate data, but somehow they don’t allow exceptions even for reputable clients like Thunderbird.
You are repeating the very same history and excuses (from the IT Dpt.) I lived and heard. Davmail works for me on Linux and MacOS even from outside the intranet. Give it a try and I would be happy to help, I have a gmail account with my nick.
I worry about all of this labelling that we apply to various ends of the "normal" spectrum. Where does it lead us? Is it actually helping?
I easily score as ADHD, but I'm in my 60s now and have never been diagnosed or treated. I have muddled through all my life. Yes, I often self-medicated unhealthily (cigarettes, various over-the-counter uppers), but also relatively healthily (I've been practicing meditation for decades). I managed to have two, long, fruitful careers (20 years of journalism, coming up to 20 years of software engineering) that (I'm betting) was at least partly attributable to me being on the outer edges of normal.
I think that's OK. I'm not looking to be "treated" because I'm a bit different.
I think there is value in knowing a term for the symptoms one might experience because it provides the ability to connect with like-minded people and potentially look into useful strategies to mitigate those symptoms, if they become problematic.
However, I do strongly agree with you that setting a boundary to "normal" and therefore implying these states to be abnormal and something that needs to be fixed is not helpful. We should be able to label a wide spectrum of neurological wiring quirks without nudging people towards changing them, unless it actually negatively impacts their ability to live a fulfilling life.
> However, I do strongly agree with you that setting a boundary to "normal" and therefore implying these states to be abnormal and something that needs to be fixed is not helpful. We should be able to label a wide spectrum of neurological wiring quirks without nudging people towards changing them, unless it actually negatively impacts their ability to live a fulfilling life.
Except I don't buy this framing that the two are in conflict. The more general awareness there is in the general population around neurodiversity, simultaneously the less shame there is about medicating and also, the greater willingness there is to accommodate each person's individual diversity.
Accomodations initially rolled out for diagnosed neurodiverse people: Like being able to control the lighting in your workspace, or being issued noise cancelling headphones no questions asked, also benefit neurotypical people who are also on the further end of the bell curve for things like that.
> We should be able to label a wide spectrum of neurological wiring quirks without nudging people towards changing them, unless it actually negatively impacts their ability to live a fulfilling life.
This is already the case. Maladaptation is a fundamental diagnostic criteria of essentially every neuropsychiatric condition. There is no reason to treat something if it's not causing you harm.
Sounds familiar. I've been quite successful professionally, I have accomplished many nice things. But always in the final days/hours and under extreme pressure (ie 2 nights of no sleep to finish PhD thesis in time for print for defense, etc, very difficult for people around me also. I'm currently working on our old house. Also not nice for me, and people around me. The results are pretty nice and technically fully correct though.)
I've had the same comment about being chaotic, and not being able to see the bigger picture during performance reviews my whole life. But I've always felt unable to see the bigger picture if not understanding the details. Although recently I've gotten better at letting go, trusting my mental models etc, but also at finding great, structured project leads (or assistants if I'm in the lead). Such people are invaluable to me, although I must say that I also start to find it easier and easier to just copy their behaviour (ie things like "Start project with timeline, not important if it's 100% accurate, its more about the order of things" - etc... At least you will appear very structured which radiates confidence!).
I've also had a manager at one point in my career that said: We really just want you to start many things, you are in research not in development. It's great that you start with so much enthusiasm, let de development people determine the fit for product later... (But perhaps a bit more "eye on the market" would be nice!)
That was somewhat of an eye opener, at 35 (42 now).
This is an important point that I missed and didn't mention: My work and school life were really hard and chaotic. This is so intrinsically part of me that I didn't even notice, but has generated a lot of stress on me and my family. I guess getting treatment would have saved me a lot of that. I wonder if it is worth it, as a 62-year-old and probably within 5/6-ish years of retirement?
I wonder the same thing (but with ~25 years to go). It would probably be better for my relationships.
But I've heard from people doing some tests with certain medications that indeed they were able to focus and plan like never before. But also loose some passion and creativity. I've heard from yet others that they should have started way earlier, before essentially wrecking their life.
I think for me at times medication would help me. But it feels like a big step and I'm not "ill", I'm not wrecking my life, my life is ok. I also feel like "this is me, I'm learning about the good and the bad." Idk, maybe I'm overly sentimental about it. I'm also to lazy to go to the doctor.
From what I have been seeing about ADHD lately, using the adrenaline of last-minute time pressure to get things done is a common ADHD coping mechanism.
My pet theory is that one of the reasons for an increase in the diagnosis of ADHD is that fewer people smoke today. Nicotine as a stimulant likely treated a lot of undiagnosed cases of ADHD.
My ADHD became screamingly obvious when I quit smoking, about a year after seriously reducing my coffee drinking from a couple pots a day to a cup or two.
Where it leads us, is to people with ADHD suffering less. Which, I don't know about you, but making fewer people suffer and for people to suffer less are basically the two driving motivations for life, so I'm in favor of it.
You're older, so you grew up in a different time, and you found your place in the world. The treatment means finishing projects, not needing to wait until the last minute to do something in order to do it. It means less stress and unecessary anxiety. It's helping people reach their potential, and not fall into the cracks.
My mother is very similar to what you have described and mimicks some reponses of her to her ADHD situation pre-diagnosis/post-diagnosis.
She is also ~60 and accomplished in her professional,social and family life.
Pre-diagnosis she would reject suggestsions going into the direction of an ADHD diagnosis, due to her accomplishments being above average --> not possible to have a disability/neuro-divergence.
The achievements are her achievements, but the expense in the context of her capabilities was very high and quite taxing on her.
A diagnosis or even treatment is not making the person normal, but it can help provide that person with options to alleviate the expense of operating differently to the baseline.
I am very happy that you managed to have this success in your life so far and you made that happen.
But under your assumption that you have ADHD you might have made that happen against odds that would have been in part optional if you had access to treatment options.
On the other hand for me, these discussions help me to frame my challenges in a productive way that gives me a chance to make useful changes to my life to accomodate them, instead of blaming myself when I struggle to do something that seems like it should be easy. So I guess the answer is, YMMV.
The article doesn't do a good job of highlighting that there is help beyond medication, and that the personal "size" of the problem should be taken inro account. I mean, "answering 6 questions -> yay, stimulants" is a bit of a shortcut, isn't it.
Recognizing that one's problems with being organized (and other executive functions) have a reason, and are not just a result of "being lazy" or "not trying enough" can be powerful and liberating. It allows acceptance and a systematic approach at addressing them. Of course, medication can help a lot while learning how to make things easier for oneself in other ways, but this should be decided with a professional who has experience with diagnosing and treating ADHD in adults, ideally one that does not simply want to push pills.
In any case, it's good to seek out more information or consult a professional IF you think you're being held back. If not, then that's great! For others, articles like this might provide the initial nudge for a noticeable improvement in their lives.
It's interesting to read this from someone who more at a more advanced stage of life, but I also wonder if there is a built-in assumption around diagnoses and treatments being potentially negative.
I think people seek out these diagnoses because they are struggling to cope with modern life in one way or another. I don't think its only a matter of attitudes ("everything must be treated"), but also the fact that the world is different. In other words, there could be two solutions: Medication/treatment to make life easier for the individual, or fix the world such that it can accommodate the arguably natural variance among individuals.
We're choosing the former, because the latter is just so, so difficult. But I think a world exists where the needs of currently medicated people with mild degrees of ADHD could thrive without any medication, and it sounds like a softer, more colorful world.
I believe ADHD might be neutral/beneficial in some environments, and I also am not a big fan of labels; if it has a non-negative impact on your life -- sure, you don't need the meds
but
Until I started doing stims, I was regularly forgetting about food/water until I could barely move, and at one occasion I procrastinated from replying to an email with the offer of my life until the deadline was over. There's a lot that you can explain with "not motivated enough", but these just don't make any sense, right?
You do need some sort of a label to prescribe controlled substances. Even if you forget about the meds, just knowing that it's a pretty common thing and you're not alone is pretty helpful.
Would you say the same if it were as physical disability? If you were born without hands and had slowly learnt how to do everything required in everyday life via an adaptation, would you reject a prosthetic if it were available?
We know people with ADHD are able to manage. The real test is always, after they try medication, is their life easier or not. A lot of people who were adamant they were managing just fine before the meds report afterwards they didn't realize how much effort they were putting in on a day to day basis just to manage themselves.
And this is not some general trend towards overmedicalization. As the article pointed out, there are precisely two psychiatric drugs that have this statistically significant an effect.
Isn't it a bit of a non sequitur? The fact that you choose not to be treated (with a history of unhealthy self-medication) doesn't imply that someone else would not benefit from changing some healthy(-ier) medication specifically targeted at ADHD.
So to answer your questions: 1. it leads us to people getting treated (or at least having the choice) for stuff that makes their life harder 2. Yes, it is helping.
If you suspected you had hypertension, would you be as confident to say we don't need to label and track those because you got old, worked and lived just fine thus far with no major episodes?
You might have been fine because you just have something like 140 mm Hg, whereas others with 180-190 might not be so lucky....
Getting treatment or not is a decision. It is linked to pressure of suffering. You write that you did well and managed your life well. Awesome.
Other people feel extensive pressure of suffering and are not able to manage their lifes like you did. For those, professional treatment can be life saving.
No, it is not just “being treated”, although learning some techniques to control anxiety has helped me a lot (meditation, in my case). Just “know thyself”, and realizing that your struggles have a root different from “laziness” helps with self-esteem.
I love these packages (like this, Spacemacs, Doom, etc.), even though I've used Emacs for over 30 years. I don't use them directly, but they give me ideas and alert me to packages I haven't heard of (eat?). And that gives me an excuse to go on another round of config-tweaking, which any Emacs user loves.
Hear hear. I poked around at almost all the packages on the top of that idemacs page. «minimap» stood out, and is such a brilliant name for its purpose. I enjoyed that discovery and the smirk it gave me today.
I'm a principal software engineer with a degree in history. You don't need a science degree to understand most of these issues sufficiently to legislate them. But you need humility and a willingness to learn. That, sadly, is lacking in too many governments and civil services.
Also, the people pushing for these measure (e.g., the U.K's equivalent of the NSA, GCHQ and most national-level police departments) understand these issues perfectly well.
Also, the people pushing for these measure (e.g., the U.K's equivalent of the NSA, GCHQ and most national-level police departments) understand these issues perfectly well.
Surely some of them understand the technical details. That doesn't necessarily mean they understand or respect the wider implications of a policy. This is why it's important to have a government that sets policy - taking into account all of the competing influences and potential consequences - and politically neutral technicians who then implement government policy.
No-one would dispute that if the government could examine every communication everyone ever sends then it could catch more very bad people and prevent more harm to innocent people. The problem is all the other stuff that also happens if you give a government that kind of power over its own people.
I'm currently writing an onboarding doc for my team, encouraging LLM use for some tasks. (OK, well, I'm actually procrastinating by reading HN).
At the same time, I'm in a darkened office with tinfoil on the windows and a fan pointed at me because it's hell outside and it has been for weeks, and every year it seems to get hotter and hotter and we have longer and longer heatwaves.
This seems ... discordant, at a minimum.
Really, _should_ we be using these things to speed up, say, dependency updates if the cost is the planet? I wanted to know what the author thought about that.