How many developers are using VSCode? How does that number compare with Emacs/Vim?
In many ways, GUI was developed as the natural evolution of TUI. X server, with its client-server architecture, is meant to allow you to interact with remote sessions via "casted" GUI rather than a terminal.
Countless engineers spent many man-hours to develop theories and frameworks for creating GUI for a reason.
>How many developers are using VSCode? How does that number compare with Emacs/Vim?
How many people eat microwave meals? How many eat gourmet Michelin star dishes?
I don't care "how many use VSCode". My argument Emacs/Vim have great, well loved TUIs. And they are used by a huge number of the most respected coders in the industry. Whether a million React jockeys use VSCode doesn't negate this.
>Countless engineers spent many man-hours to develop theories and frameworks for creating GUI for a reason.
Yes, it sells to the masses. Countless food industry scientists aspend many man-hours to develop detrimental ultra-processed crap for a reason too.
The analogy mostly makes a point for snobbishness, but otherwise doesn’t really work. Most people would rather eat meals prepped by a Michelin star cook, but they can only afford microwave meals - whereas EMacs/Vim and VSCode are equally accessible to anyone.
I love emacs but would never compare that with a Michelin meal! On the contrary, emacs is the DIY option that lets you experiment with whatever ingredients you please without judging your choices!
> My argument Emacs/Vim have great, well loved TUIs.
They... are not great. They provide the absolute bare minimum of an UI.
An UI, even a terminal one, is more than a couple of boxes with text in them. Unfortunately, actual great TUIs more or less died in the 1990s. You can google Turbo Vision for examples.
> How many developers are using VSCode? How does that number compare with Emacs/Vim?
Perhaps I'm in some sort of "TUI bubble", but I'd bet good money that Emacs/Vim users outnumber VSCode users by an order of magnitude. But maybe I'm just surrounded by *nix devs.
I agree except about the TUI coolness factor. There really is a lot that’s appealing about TUIs, I agree on that with the other commenters here. I want a better synthesis than what we have.
I think it's the opposite. Especially considering Codex started out as a web app that offers very little interactivity: you are supposed to drop a request and let it run automatously in a containerized environment; you can then follow up on it via chat --- no interactive code editing.
Fair I agree that was true of early codex and my perception too.. but today there are two announcements that came out and thats what im referring to.
specifically, the GPT-5.3 post explicitly leans into "interactive collaborator" langauge and steering mid execution
OpenAI post: "Much like a colleague, you can steer and interact with GPT-5.3-Codex while it’s working, without losing context."
OpenAI post: "Instead of waiting for a final output, you can interact in real time—ask questions, discuss approaches, and steer toward the solution"
Claude post: "Claude Opus 4.6 is designed for longer-running, agentic work — planning complex tasks more carefully and executing them with less back-and-forth from the user."
When I tried 5.2 Codex in GitHub Copilot it executed some first steps like searching for the relevant files, then it output the number "2" and stopped the response.
On further prompting it did the next step and terminated early again after printing how it would proceed.
It's most likely just a bug in GitHub Copilot, but it seems weird to me that they add models that clearly don't even work with their agentic harness.
I think those OpenAI announcements are mainly because this hasn’t been the case for them earlier, while it has been part of Claude Code since the beginning.
I don’t think there’s something deeply philosophical in here, especially as Claude Code is pushing stronger for asking more questions recently, introduced functionality to “chat about questions” while they’re asked, etc.
Frankly it seems to be that codex is playing catch-up with claude code and claude code is just continuing to move further ahead. The thing with claude code is it will work longer... if you want it to. It's always had good oversight and (at least for me) it builds trust slowly until you are wishing it would do more at once. When I've used codex (it has been getting better) but back in the day it would just do things and say it's done and you're just sitting there wondering "wtf are you doing?". Claude code is more the opposite where you can watch as closely as you want and often you get to a point where you have enough trust and experience with it that you know what it's going to do and don't want to bother.
Greenlanders could vote to be completely independent, yes. That is the situation right now.
However, Trump has done everything to turn Greenlanders away, and not done anything to convince them of independence would be good for them, so a vote for independence will likely fail catastrophically right now. Independence is many decades away, as they would really have to build a stronger economy to make it happen, but that is the direction Greenlanders would like to go, at least if you asked them 2 years ago.
The "independence" of Greenland under Trump would be identical to the "independence" of Venezuela following the US' abduction of its leader & murder of 100 people during the operation. Whatever Greenland's opinion on independence is, what's on offer by Trump would only be worse in every way than what they currently have.
Not in a meaningful way which Greenlanders would submit to. There would be constant unrest and civil disobedience, nothing would function, and bringing in your own people (including the armed forces) to keep things barely working wouldn't be a solution either.
Unfortunately Greenland as a whole has 50.000 people in total of which 20.000 live in largest city and the rest scattered across 19 others.
Thats about the size of a small town in the US, the country may be big in territory but not in population.
It happens all the time. America and the EU are bought and paid for. The funniest part is that they’re being paid for with the very money the buyers plunder with the left hand, only to use the right hand to purchase the treasonous dominant class.
It’s like a sleight of hand magic trick pulled on an infant that is then gleeful for the deception.
> International law has a number of enforcement mechanisms.
That's rather naïve.
How do you propose to enforce the law when the offender possesses the greatest military/economic/technological might, even compared to the rest of the (law-biding) world combined?
US, for quite some time, is the international law.
Article 6 of the United States Constitution says international law is United States law. US courts are the enforcement mechanism as far as the United States Constitution is concerned.
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land"
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-6/
> How do you propose to enforce the law when the offender possesses the greatest military/economic/technological might, even compared to the rest of the (law-biding) world combined?
Had you read the entire comment you were responding to, you would note that as well as pointing out that international law has enforcement mechanisms, that I pointed out how the executive part of those differs from what many national criminal law systems use (which is a real difference), and moreover the problem they have with conflicts of interests between any of the available executive agents with many important enforcement issues (a situation which also happens with national criminal law systems even where, unlike international law, they have a nominally-dedicated executive body for enforcement purposes rather than relying on the adjudicative/determinative body calling for an ad hoc posse the way that international law generally works.)
Or what happens when crimes are committed by, or at the direction and with the protection of the President of the United States.
I think most people would not argue that “US federal criminal law has no enforcement mechanism”, they would argue that “US federal criminal law has a significant practical enforcement problem where enforcement of the law conflicts with interests of the chief executive”.
My point is, the powerful nations are the enforcement mechanism in international law. When they are the ones breaking the law themselves, that doesn’t mean there isn’t an enforcement mechanism, it just means it’s a possibly unjust one, just like with national enforcement mechanisms.
The difference is that in the national case, justice is expected; whereas in the international case, it must be understood that there is not supposed to be a "enforcement mechanism" that delivers justice.
In both case there are enforcement mechanism that deliver the will of the enforcers collectively which sometimes correlates with justice or at least a reasonable reading of the letter of the law; in both cases there are a wide set of failure modes from the perspective of law and even moreso justice, because law enforcement (and, in the case of concern for justice, also law making) rely on institutions ultimately composed of people, and the interests of those people is often not in the law or justice.
If you see the difference as being “in the national case, justice is expected”, you either have an extremely naive view of national law, or at a minimum of an extremely narrow and privileged one.
Sure, you can argue that "justice is expected" doesn't align with how the real world actually operates, but in the modern interpretation, national law enforcers are supposed to be subject to the same law they are enforcing (whether that is actually the case is another issue); they may break the law some times, but being a law enforcer does not exempt them from the obligation of obeying the law. In other words, law and its enforcement apply universally.
In the international case, it is understood that the "law enforcers" are not obliged to play by the same rule. The "enforcement" therefore only applies selectively. Then the law cannot really be said to have been being enforced, because they don't apply to the "enforcer".
> but in the modern interpretation, national law enforcers are supposed to be subject to the same law they are enforcing
That is true in the same sense for national law as it is for international law (that is, true in idealized theory, much less true in practice. Actually, its somewhat less true in many national law systems than of international law at the intermediate level between pure theory and practice of the concrete, on-the-books law, where law enforcers, especially at the apex, often enjoy on-the-books immunities from some or all of the law that they enforce.)
I remember seeing some tech vlogger discovering that the lag was due to a bug where the fade-in animation of the menu not being played properly, and the menu just "appear" after the missing animation, leading to the feeling of sluggish interaction.
Chrome browser has extensive enterprise support. Companies already control and monitor Chrome browser activity on the computers of their employees. And it's okay as well -- privacy should not be assumed or expected on company-owned devices.
It's different. It used to be that they don't have enough resources to "keep an eye on you" all the time. All those captured activities are only used against you when you are already on the redundancy shortlist. Now AI can watch what and how you are doing things 24/7, producing real-time reports on your productivity and performance --- a truly dystopian experience.
BTW I've already seen something like this being deployed in China. It's only a matter of time before the rest of the world gets the same treatment I am afraid.
I feel this is not the scalable/right way to approach this. The right way would be for human creators to apply their own digital signatures to the original pieces they created (specialised chips on camera/in software to inject hidden pixel patterns that are verifiable). If a piece of work lacks such signature, it should be considered AI-generated by default.
You aren’t specifying your point of comparison. A nightmare relative to what? You might be saying a nightmare relative to what we have now. Are you?
We once considered text to be generated exclusively by humans, but this assumption must be tossed out now.
I usually reject arguments based on an assumption of some status quo that somehow just continues.
Why? I’ll give two responses, which are similar but use different language.
1. There is a fallacy where people compare a future state to the present state, but this is incorrect. One has to compare two future states, because you don’t get to go back in time.
2. The “status quo” isn’t necessarily a stable equilibrium. The state of things now is not necessarily special nor guaranteed.
I’m now of the inclination to ask for a supporting model (not just one rationale) for any prediction, even ones that seem like common sense. Common sense can be a major blind spot.
> You aren’t specifying your point of comparison. A nightmare relative to what? You might be saying a nightmare relative to what we have now. Are you?
Very fair point.
And no, it’s less about the status quo and more about AI being the default. There are just too many reasons why this proposal, on its face, seems problematic to me. The following are some questions to highlight just a few of them:
- How exactly would “human creators [applying] their own digital signatures to the original pieces they created” work for creators who have already passed away?
- How fair exactly would it be to impose such a requirement when large portions of the world’s creators (especially in underdeveloped areas) would likely not be able to access and use the necessary software?
- How exactly do anonymous and pseudonymous creators survive such a requirement?
Actually come to think of it, I suppose a "special camera" could also record things like focusing distance, zoom, and accelerations/rotation rates. These could be correlated to the image seen to detect this kind of thing.
Maybe as the direct effect, maybe not. Also think about second order effects: how would various interests respond? The desire for privacy is strong and people will search for ways to get it.
Have you looked into kinds of mitigations that cryptography offers? I’m not an expert, but I would expect there are ways to balance some degree of anonymity with some degree of human identity verification.
Perhaps there are some experts out there who can comment?
Not necessarily. It’s basically document signing with key pairs —- old tech that is known to work. It’s purpose is not to identify the individual creators, but to verify that a piece of work was created by a process/device that is not touched by AI.
> It’s basically document signing with key pairs —- old tech that is known to work.
I understand the technical side of the suggestion. The social and practical side is inevitably flawed.
You need some sort of global registry of public keys. Not only does each registrar have to be trusted but you also need to both trust every single real person to protect and not misuse their keys.
Leaving aside the complete practical infeasability that, even if you accomplish it, you now have a unique identifier tied to every piece of text. There will inevitably be both legal processes to identify who produce a signed work as well as data analysis approaches to deanonamize the public keys.
The end result is pretty clearly that anyone wishing to present material that purports to be human made has to forgo anonymity/pseudonymity. Claiming otherwise is like claiming we can have a secure government backdoor for encryption.
I like the digital signature approach in general, and have argued for it before, but this is the weak link. For photos and video, this might be OK if there's a way to reliably distinguish "photos of real things" from "photos of AI images"; for plain text, you basically need a keystroke-authenticating keyboard on a computer with both internet access and copy and paste functionality securely disabled -- and then you still need an authenticating camera on the user the whole time to make sure they aren't just asking Gemini on their phone and typing its answer in.
> for plain text, you basically need a keystroke-authenticating keyboard on a computer with both internet access and copy and paste functionality securely disabled -- and then you still need an authenticating camera on the user the whole time to make sure they aren't just asking Gemini on their phone and typing its answer in.
Which is why I say it would destroy privacy/pseudonymity.
> For photos and video, this might be OK if there's a way to reliably distinguish "photos of real things" from "photos of AI images";
I suspect if you think about it, many of the issues with text also apply to images and videos.
You'd need a secure enclave You'd need a chain of signatures and images to allow human editing. You'd need a way of revoking the public keys of not just insecure software, but bad actors. You would need verified devices to prevent allowing AI tooling the using software to edit the image....etc.
This are only the flaws I can think of in like 5 minutes. You've created a huge incentive to break an incredibly complex system. I have no problem comfortably saying that the end result is a complete lack of privacy for most people while those with power/knowledge would still be able to circumvent it.
there's very likely already some sort of fingerprinting in camera chips, à la printer yellow dot watermarks that uniquely identify a printer and a print job...
The way those work is primarily through a combination of obscurity (most people don't know they exist) and through a lack of real finacial incentive to break them at scale.
I would also argue that those techniques do greatly reduce privacy and anonymity.
My understanding is that the way it works is that your proxy server pretends to be a server ran by some legitimate entity (e.g. cloudflare, aws, etc.). When setting up the server, you will instruct it respond using the cert from the façade domain. To the censor, it would appear that you are approaching a server ran by the legitimate entity. If the censor becomes suspicious of the IP and decides to probe the server to see if it is a circumventing proxy, it would see valid certs but no actual content (as if the server at the IP is broken/down). However, there is actually a secret path+password that you can use to make the server aware that you are a real client and the proxy server would start proxy your traffic normally.
Is it just me but I feel "social" would imply centralization. After all, if I want to socialize I will want to go where other people go, using a tool/client/channel that works for most people --- this inevitably leads to centralization.
I don’t agree — I can socialize with my neighbor and I can also socialize in a centralized hub, like a club.
What I like about the Bluesky setup is that you’ve got the potential for neighbor socialization while having central areas be accessible. What I’m not sure about is whether they’ll still have momentum when(if?) tech-averse users understand the model enough to use it. Because if there’s one thing that definitely isn’t social, it’s a lack of active users.
I think it’s far more likely to work than mastodon because there is that centralized hub for people who don’t give a shit about decentralization.
What if your neighbors decided it's just easier to socialize in a centralized club and go there all the time?
Gradually, you "lose" neighbors to socialize with because people (and things in general) gravitate towards the path of least effort. Eventually you will have to go to the club too.
This is something we lived through already, right? Centralized social media platforms are largely dominated by annoying people nowadays. The article is about a group that decided “hey, the club sucks, let’s make our own,” and they seem to be doing alright.
I think people are missing that there's a middle ground between "fully decentralized" (everyone in their own home) and "fully centralized" (entire population of the earth goes to one spot to converse, like the Hajj a hundred times larger.
Bluesky connects these things though, right? Isn’t that the point of the article? But even if someone was deliberately segregating them: if I don’t want to go to the club, but my neighbor wants to go to the club more than they want to hang out with me, then I don’t get to hang out with my neighbor. That’s life.
This is why I miss RSS so much. It is such a great way to keep up with people over a wide variety of platforms with your own powerful user agent.
I still use a self hosted FreshRSS heavily and fortunately many sites still accidentally support it, but it could be so much easier for non tech people.
In many ways, GUI was developed as the natural evolution of TUI. X server, with its client-server architecture, is meant to allow you to interact with remote sessions via "casted" GUI rather than a terminal.
Countless engineers spent many man-hours to develop theories and frameworks for creating GUI for a reason.
TUI just got the nostalgia "coolness".
reply