Skip Navigation

Posts
3
Comments
534
Joined
5 yr. ago

  • In general, I agree that you can always use the CLI raw, but a frontend is a lot more friendly for many. It's the reason some people prefer TUI over CLI as well (some people really like lazygit and lazydocker which are just frontends wrapping git and docker CLI calls and presenting it in a TUI). A TUI/GUI can structure information in panels, it can be more context-sensitive and it can help provide visual representations of the operation.

    Also, wrapping CLI commands (whether through a GUI or a TUI) means the wrapper can automatically combine the commands in whichever way it's best for a particular goal, or more conveniently set up batch processing... it's helpful for people who don't like having to make their own scripts, or craft long oneliners.

    Plus: lets say you have your computer hooked to your TV and don't have space for a keyboard (but can use a small wireless mouse on the arm of your couch), a GUI wrapper that allows you to perform operations with just a mouse can be very convenient.

    I don't know what kind of GUIs are you imagining, but I've hardly ever seen 1-to-1 recreations to a single individual command (unless that command is extremely complex or a graphical representation would be actually useful).

    Some examples:

    Gparted creates a job list of terminal commands for the disk manipulation, but it presents a graphical representation of the disks before you actually commit to executing the commands internally, so you can see what would be the result of the changes in the GUI side before actually pressing the button that actually executes parted, fdisk, mkfs, resize2fs, etc. (they do wrap the commands when it comes to executing the changes), without you needing to go through the steps and specific syntax of each of them on your own.

    There are wrappers to ffmpeg for video editing or transcoding that some people find convenient for discoverability of the options available and/or to have a limited list of presets / sanitized options for those who don't want to bother creating their own scripts. Sometimes also showing video previews for the graphical representation (useful when the operation is about cropping the image, or picking the exact millisecond where to cut). An example is LosslessCut, they keep a log of the ffmpeg calls.. or maybe Shutter Encoder (press Alt+C to see the console commands).

    In Synaptic, the GUI package manager, pressing "Apply" calls the appropriate APT commands as a CLI app inside a VTE with the selection of the packages you have decided to add/remove/update, which you have previously selected in the listing that is generated from the GUI view of the app. Some people like having a graphical detailed listing which might be useful for conveniently browsing packages and seeing their detailed description, while still you get the raw information and accurate log from the installation that you would get when you are just using the CLI.

  • Yes. But my point is that until now that has not been made explicit, so there's no reason for websites to require IDs right now, at least not until the government does mandate such a system. So I was wondering what's the minimal effort that would satisfy current mandate.

  • Still, the title is misdirected, and it sounds like Proton trying to do marketing.

    Neither is it true that Europe is ready yet (most companies are stuck with MS products like the other commenter said) nor are all those who want to switch looking for privacy (but rather more independence from US).

  • The thing is that age verification in a digital world is not easy.. what exactly does the government mandate as a valid verification method?

    Like.. would asking the user their age be valid enough? ... because it's not like a reliable method exist (not even credit card verification prevents a minor from taking their parents card and go through it). IMHO, until the government doesn't actually set a standard, I don't see why websites should actually give anything else than the most minimal effort possible when it comes to this.

  • Personally, I feel that if it uses control characters to update the screen in previous positions, altering the scroll buffer, moving beyond where the cursor is and redrawing the screen, then it's a TUI.

    CLI programs only output plain text in a stream, using just control characters for coloring and formatting, and if they do any re-drawing it's only for the current line (eg. progressbars and so).

    So.. even something like less is a TUI program.. but things like more or sed would be CLI programs.

  • Isn't the T for "text"? (ie. "Text User Interface")

    I mean, in the context of Unix systems it's most likely gonna be within a terminal emulator, but in theory you can have a TUI inside an SDL window rendering the text there (specially when they are ports from other systems where they might be using different character sets than whats available in terminals.. or if they want to force a specific font).

    The only example that comes to my head right now is ZZT, but I believe there are many games on Steam that use a TUI rendered within their own program, not a terminal.

  • Well its just silly. To me its demanding that no mechanism of free choice (will) be present.

    Well.. yes, if that is the implication, then well.. that's the implication. But changing the definition of freedom just because one does not like the implications would not make much sense to me.

    To me you can’t really include the individual and their molecules and such as they are the individual that has the agency.

    The whole point is to find out if the individual has freedom or not.. and for that you need to find out if each and every of the molecules that make up that individual has been influenced by external factors past and present. Emphasis in past, given that there are way more external factors in our past than there are in our present. The external factors go even beyond our own lifetimes.. you are influenced by factors that happened before you were born.. and before your parents were born.. we have external factors even encoded in our DNA. The reason why you even feel the impulse to eat that donut is an external factor... the reason why you feel the impulse to NOT eat that donut is another external factor. Our individual wishes and wants are just the expression of external factors... our molecules are built through external factors, external factors make us grow.. external factors are what we are made out from. And since we all are modeled in different circumstances, we are different, every last one of us, with different combinations of different external factors, each influencing each other, in a harmonious soup of relationships with one another and with our environment. Even 2 identical twins become more and more different the more they experience the world, since they will inevitably have different experiences in life (even from the womb, before they are even born!)... even the smallest of things can snowball into experiences we will unconsciously internalize and alter our personality and the way we see ourselves and others.

    Even though theoretically its considered the best way to go and even if the individual knows the optimized choice they may choose to not go that way.

    I disagree. People always take the optimal choice for them. It's just that what's "optimal" depends on the dataset one uses. Eating that donut has a lot of pros, and not eating it has a lot of pros too.. it's all about what action is optimal given the influence of the external factors that model one's behavior. In some models, eating the donut and getting the gratification is the optimal path, so they do that (whether it's good for the individual or not), other neural models might see more value in not eating it so they don't do that.

  • This leads us again to "freedom" losing meaning. How do you differentiate a free choice from a choice that is not free? "free will" vs "non-free will".

    Optimizing choices is a mathematical operation.. a rock, when thrown, moves in such a way that it optimizes the potential energy and does not stop moving until it reaches the minimum energy state, optimizing for minimal entropy. A slime mold optimizes the nutrient intake by having its cells expand and reproduce where they connect with food and progressively die where they don't.

    All the things you mentioned are not incompatible with free will not existing. Two non-free people in the same non-free situations make different non-free choices because of who they are. The impossibility of truly knowing someone is something that's consistent with a non-free world were nobody has full knowledge of all factors that determine them. If the human brain was simple enough for us to understand we would be too stupid to understand it. It's a recursive problem. We can analyze simpler mechanisms, but the simpler they get, the better we understand them, and the more clear the lack of "agency" in them becomes.

  • What's put into question is not our perception of getting to decide between different choices, what we are challenging is whether or not those choices are taken freely or determined by external factors.

    Again, just because you are making a choice, amongst many possibilities, does not mean that this choice is "free".

    And one cannot judge this based on what one knows about the factors affecting oneself, since you necessarily cannot have full knowledge of them.

    This is another recursive problem, one that happens in our own perception of those factors, if we knew about everything that affects our decisions, then this knowledge would affect our decisions, and so there would be a new external factor which would be the repercussions this knowledge itself would have...and if you knew this new factor this knowledge would again be new information that you'd need to be aware of, and being aware of it would again add to the data pool you use to base your decisions, altering it... and so on infinitely

    This makes it impossible for us to ever be aware of all factors that determine our decisions. So the "feeling" of having no external factors that determines you is actually not really proof of us having any kind of freedom, since even in a deterministic world, with no freedom, it would be expected for people to be unaware of their own determining factors. It's in fact expected for people to not be aware of the determination.

  • Yes, there's been societies in the past that would attribute "free will" to fill the gaps in their knowledge, but that's an approach that consistently has been shown to be wrong as our knowledge of the world has expanded. So for that reason I don't think it's not a good approach to try and define things in relation to the limits of our knowledge.

  • Yes, that's the difference between theory and practice. It's just a way to try and explain the idea of determinism, it's not about actually arguing that building a machine that predicts the entire Universe is actually possible. I think Sabine knows that's impossible in practical terms, since you'll reach practical limits in information storage and face infinite recursion (the machine might have to contain a model of itself to predict the effects of its own existence).

    I think the only way for that machine to exist would be if it were completely external to the thing that is predicting (so.. external to our Universe) and independent from it, with no way to alter it, or to even measure anything on it (since measurements also cause alterations at the quantum level).

    But the practical viability of such machine wasn't the point of the example, the point was to illustrate a system being deterministic.

    Like I said before, there’s a difference between something being actually “predictable” and something being “deterministic”. Something that is predictable necessarily is deterministic (which is why predictability is often used as a way to illustrate it), but something being deterministic does not necessarily make it predictable in practice.

  • Note that "knowing the next step" implies knowing "everything" about that next step.

    So if you accept that, given knowledge of "everything" about a given state, it's possible to know "everything" about the next state, it follows by pure logic that this can be iterated. Otherwise, you would have to say that it's not true that the knowledge of "everything" about a state makes it possible to know "everything" about the next state.

    So either you agree that one can go forwards beyond the second state or you don't think we can know "everything" about that second state, or you don't really think that knowing "everything" about a state really guarantees that you will be able to predict the next one.

    But saying that you can perfectly know one step and not the next one seems logically incoherent to me. Not when you are talking about a theoretical perfect system that follows that initial premise. If there are factors that affect going from state+1 to state+2 then why would those factors not play a role when going from state+0 to state+1?

    You would need to introduce variables that are not known (like say.. random factors), which would already mean that you do not really agree with the initial premise (since the initial premise implies that there are no unknown variables). And if there are variables that are unknown.. why would you assume that state+1 (the first step) is predictable to begin with?

  • I agree that "having a mechanism for our being, our will, does not make in nonfree will."

    The one thing that makes it non-free is the lack of any freedom (given the exact same circumstances) of choosing differently.

    So if you think our actions are 100% determined by external factors, and that we don't have the freedom to choose differently, then I would say that's not what normally is considered "free".

    I honestly don't see this being for/against "a mystical spirit or soul" one way or the other.. one can believe in a deterministic God/soul (like for example, Spinoza's God), or one can believe in free will without it being spiritual at all.. whether there's "spiritality" is not really directly related, imho.

    We make different decisions because we are different entities and that to me is free will. I mean I also feel we define ourselves by our actions so in effect by the decisions we make.

    To me, we being different entities is differentiation, not free will. Two pieces of rock can also behave differently when thrown because they might have different distribution of their mass.. does this make the rocks free?

    Also, I think we are way more than just our actions.. but if we were to really define everything based on the actions that it takes as a consequence of their circunstances, then you might as well define a rock by the way it bounces as a consequence of its velocity. Does that make it free?

  • To be honest when we can’t really predict an algorithm we do start talking about free will. Thats whats happening with the llm’s.

    But then this makes free will something relative to own limit of knowledge.. meaning that if we were sufficiently stupid to be unable to predict the behavior of the much more simplistic Eliza bot we might think that this bot has free will too.

    It would also imply that a sufficiently random algorithm (ie. one that cannot be predicted) also has free will. If there was a random number generator (ie. a set of dice) that was fully random and unpredictable, would you say it has free will?

    it seems that the argument against free will is that if a mechanism for free will exists then its predicatable so then it can’t exist. I don’t think the how we get to decisions makes them any less relevant in making them.

    I think this is the same topic we were discussing in this other comment branch, so I'm gonna refer to that as to not repeat ourselves :)

    Thanks for the interesting conversation.

  • I feel you are defining "free will" as any form of "will".

    What would be the difference between having a "deterministic will" and having "free will" in your view?

    If you think that every decision that involves our own willpower is "free", even when that decision is 100% predictable/determined and one cannot really arbitrarily choose to "will" it differently, then calling it "free" is meaningless, since it does not really require the freedom to choose differently.

  • I cannot forgive their actions despite them being victims of determinism, just like everybody else.

    Personally, I feel that's a different topic. Being determined does not mean your actions can't be morally judged.

    Just because a dangerous animal like a bull might have it in their nature to trample people in the streets does not mean we should just tolerate it and let it go rampant. This behavior should be prevented. And if the cause of the behavior is a human mental/behavioral pattern, then we, as a society, should seek to correct those patterns in whichever way possible. Sometimes this means jail.

    However, the punishment is only a means to an end.. the goal is to prevent future damage, it's not a vengeful vendetta out of spite/hate.. it would make no sense to punish the same way a child who you know will learn / has learnt their lesson than an animal that you know cannot change their ways and the only solution would be keeping it away from society.

  • That is what I said.

    The person I was responding to was saying that " We effectively have free will " just because "you would need something larger than existence " to process the data that predicts the Universe.

    I was giving the example of the computer as a way to show that this is not typically the way we understand "free will", it's not about actually being able to predict things, not necessarily.

  • The question is not whether we can run a simulation based on such expression, but whether everything is expressible in such a way that shows it being deterministic.

    To me, having"free will" is independent of our capacity of knowledge. For example: if you tell me that, for whatever reason, it's impossible to really predict how will a particular computer algorithm behave, I would still not say that the algorithm has "free will", I'll just say that there are limits to our own capacity for knowledge that prevent us from predicting it, but this doesn't make it less deterministic.

    There's a difference between something being "predictable" and something being "deterministic". For something to be predictable it needs to be deterministic, but something being deterministic does not necessarily make it predictable.

  • I generally agree but it depends on the application and the computer purpose / input you will most use.

    Like.. it doesn't make much sense to have a CLI/TUI for an image editor.. if you start using things like sixel you are essentially building a GUI that runs in a terminal, not a TUI. The same happens with videogames, video players and related entertainment applications.

    But like I said, I do generally agree. I'd even argue that when possible, GUIs should just be frontends that ultimately just call the corresponding CLI programs with the appropriate parameters, avoiding duplication.

  • Europe @lemmy.ml

    EU leaders agree to move ahead with ‘Buy European’ policy

    www.theguardian.com /world/2026/feb/12/eu-leaders-clash-buy-european-belgium-summit
  • Europe @feddit.org

    EU leaders agree to move ahead with ‘Buy European’ policy

    www.theguardian.com /world/2026/feb/12/eu-leaders-clash-buy-european-belgium-summit
  • RPG @lemmy.ml

    The Lazy GM's Resource Document was released under CC-BY

    slyflourish.com /lazy_gm_resource_document.html