Instructions unclear: my website is now advertising the logic of spaghetti for an Italian restaurant.

While I agree with the sentiment for the effect its adherents want to have, but...

Why not just

"Communicate clearly"?

- Don't add fluff

- write as plainly as possible

- write as precisely as is reasonable

- Only make reasonable assumptions about the reader

- Do your best to anticipate ambiguity and proactively disambiguate. (Because your readers may assume that if they don't understand you, what you wrote isn't for them.)

- Don't be selfish or self-centered; pay attention to the other humans because a significant amount of communication happens in nuance no matter how hard we try to minimize it.

Because those are far more general than what he is asking for, and what he is asking for will usually not be seen as covered by your generalization.

The blog post is an open letter: the author wants everyone reading to follow the those rules.

No. Crocker's rules are a request for people to act a certain way with respect to you, not wrt anyone else.

Crocker's rules themselves might be, but the essay is plainly contemptuous of people who aren't naturally disposed to follow them.

… I don't know what your incident reports look like, but if there's anywhere it's normal to optimise for communicative clarity rather than social wheel-greasing, it's an incident report!

How do you figure that the author is “developmentally challenged”? It sounds to me like they are able to handle their insecurities in a more mature and emotionally balanced way than most others.

They wrote an entire article about how they hate when someone says they hope they had a nice weekend...

If that is what you took from the article I think you might have some language development issues yourself, friend.

Be more direct with me. Don't say things like "If that is what you took" or "I think", you're just wasting my time.

erase the context, perhaps? Deny access to Gemini associated with that google account? These kinds of pathological AI interactions are the buildup of weeks to months of chats usually. At the very least, AI companies the moment the chatbot issues a suicide prevention response should trigger an erasure of the stored context across all chat history.

The deadpan irony is on point. Something it seems the Norwegians have perfected.

Another one of my favorite examples of this (an ad for Oslo tourism): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vhD59ac7nw

The Javazone videos were legendary too, very similarly Norwegian and very similarly overproduced: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnqAXuLZlaE

I think a city should feel a little hard to get

I mean that's fine I guess. But the best deadpan Norwegian sketch is kammelåså: https://youtu.be/s-mOy8VUEBk

My breakfast recipe this morning, thanks to this article:

- 1/4 c. milk

- 1/2 c. flour

- 4 eggs

- 1/3 c. sugar

- some salt

- cinnamon

- cloves

- nutmeg

- poppyseeds

Did the first two cakes without baking powder, turned into something between a crepe and a tortilla. Did the last two cakes with baking powder and they were just a very squishy pancake.

As others have mentioned, SPICE is the traditional answer to that question. But SPICE feels more like a macro-assembler for circuits.

One project that comes to mind for high-level programming style circuits-as-code:

https://github.com/atopile/atopile

Show HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39263854 More recent HN thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44548449

Probably not much: the requirement is exact equivalence of program inputs to outputs, and as such the agents are performing very mechanical translation from the existing C++ code to Rust. Their prompts aren't "implement X browser component in rust", they're "translate this C++ code to Rust, with these extra details that you can't glean from the code itself."

Iverson's point is more regarding semantics than syntax, though. The only mention of syntax suggests its better for it to be simple (presumably so that the semantics are closer to the surface). Every programming language is a notation for describing computation; notation is a catch all for all three levels: orthography, syntax, and semantics. APL is interesting because it not only uses an unconventional syntax, but also an unconventional orthography (obligate usage of special symbols), and its semantics are different as well from most languages (array programming). Iverson's point is that APL as a notation is valuable for making the structure of certain computations obvious, and that this point generalizes across programming languages.

GingerBill's article is making a narrower claim: that semantics are what determines a good notation usually, not syntax.

> Iverson's point is that APL as a notation is valuable for making the structure of certain computations obvious,

Yes, very much so, where as usual, there are local maxima where each notation excels at representing some problems nicely and is awkward for others.

Breadboard is an excellent name for this project: it tells me that I can snap preexisting components (analogous to ICs) onto a grid and make connections (analogous to wires) between them.

Context, as always, is everything. I don't think that anyone is mistaking Peter Thiel for one of the elves of Valinor.