A question about God, the answer to which should tell nothing of religious beliefs?

Sister kiki, you fasted the entire month _before_ Ramadan, so only God knows of the sinuous intricacies of your immaculately devotional stratagems. However, I am utterly convinced that your phrasing is, most assuredly, a subtle confession of your ardorous, fervent faith.

For in commanding us to tell nothing of belief, you command us not to simply believe, but to **KNOW** there is a God; and in posing such questions, you humbly remind your brethren not to fall for idolatry.

Give thanks and praise, for we shall not serve nor bow ourselves down to no one and no thing but the LORD. A "very powerful entity" is not greater than all, [TRANSCENDENT OVER ALL]; it is IMPOTENT before the Almighty, Most Exalted, Most High.

In summary, sister kiki reminds us to _both_ (utilize reason) and {reject shirk}, for the later requires the former.

Let us now rejoice, and join our hands and voices in prayer...

why is this so true, it hurts my feelings :c

@retoor Nice. I'll give it a go. Though right now I'm the homosapiens version of mashed potatoes. Need coffee to come back to life, can't have coffee until the sun goes down. Oh noes.

@retoor Mine is more the for dummies version you see.

The prompt is lacking a lot of things, there are a few *esoteric* rules about spellmaking for instance, and I left those out because I wanted to keep it as short as I could. Besides, you can just make up what the spell does and the AI can generally fill in the blanks.

If I had the freedom to instruct the bot in an absolutely thorough way, that is, had I the assurance that it won't get confused the longer the instruction is, then I'd probably make it *slightly* longer and more complex, but not by a lot. For the most part it's just tiny little details about what happens when you do this or that with magic, mostly there for balance, like how energy consumption works, the concept of spell degree, and how any spell above the eleventh degree is so volatile that it's nearly guaranteed to cause a twenty-meter radius explosion of all-consuming infernal black fire.

Maybe one day...

@retoor aaah so thats snek. i thought you were talking about python and i was confused.

@retoor I'm not gonna lie I never went to bed and the walls anre kind fo pulsating fuck. I'm going to slow down typing ok.

But where I was running it, just some randomass generator on perchance, I'm between excited baby and not taking it seriously at all. a bit of both. How do you even run the brain-in-a-jar? Aren't they ultimate virgin miningrack levels of expensive or did I miss something?

I saw some guy do some weird kinky shit with a transformer and it just spat endless shakespeare, it's not what it sounds like i swwear. I was like hmm, okay, maybe it's not so tough. But I never bothered actually looking into it so I dunno.

Also you're a monster and that is fascinating. I used to never sleep. this was before I became an evil wizard. Now I get bored and collapse, but not today, i'm not sure what happened. last I woke up it was thursday at 5:00 AM, i think.

als oI'm derailing but hopefully you don't mind.

oh noes, the tag disappeared. is this moderation?

for the archivists and recordsisits let it be known that it said: "i know the _exact_ diameter of your dilated asshole." and yes i am proud. of something.

bybebyes.

@retoor excuse the incredibly explicit and rude tag but my brain is made of decaying bioluminescent fungi.

anyway.

Am I just delirious or is this a tree-to-bark for my dungeon mastering brain-in-a-jar?

@kobenz 100% falafel.

"Vim and other bigoted editors can go fuck themselves. Unlike Vim users, I have actual work to do, so I don’t have time to polish my configs. I want things working out of the box."

lmaoooo, this is so true. I have a script to **build** my editor config files.

I don't like VSCode, but take my plusplus nonetheless.

@donkulator I will answer with a second excerpt:

Returning to their abode, she led him to the attic, where despite the romantic setting, his interest remained in the lemon pie, not the sexual undertones.

I hereby grant you consent to draw your own conclusions; just remember, the safeword is khubzuza'atar.

@donkulator The orgy, the romantic evening, or both?

I am Ishaq ibn 3dila and I approve of this message.

I was always downright hostile towards the field of AI, no diss to actual researchers, but you guys both misnamed the shit out of it and have never been loud enough in shutting down the dumbass things people say.

That being said, some years ago I tried a few models out of curiosity, this was back when the unenlightened were freaking out about losing their jobs en-masse. Anyway, all the models would always get some miniscule detail wrong no matter how much context I provided, which is irreconcilable with the perfection complex inherent to software engineering, making it a fundamentally flawed tool for the task.

From that day on, I knew that it would go nowhere far, and my mind was once again at ease. Good times.

Side note, and in case anyone thinks 'perfection complex' is exaggerating: you're missing *one* semicolon. Or better yet, you got a single decimal wrong in your PI constant.

I rest my case.

The core of the problem is that a compromise has to be struck between these two extremes:

- Base language offering no higher abstraction, allowing for the simplest possible syntax.

- Higher abstraction being builtin, which often times necessitates that syntax be more complex.

This is an ongoing question. What I'd propose is that abstraction should be obtained by writing more user-level code rather than by modifying the base language, but that implies a major shift in how compilers are built, due to certain metaprogramming problems (in my eyes) requiring that the syntax itself be extendable or modifiable to a certain degree, which means that [the compiler itself must, in a way, be **extendable** through said code].

In essence, the ideal scenario would be that a base language is both simple and flexible enough so as to allow for building the extreme opposite when it is required.

See fasmg for something that approximates this concept. Its an assembler engine though, so not quite.

@12bitfloat Macros being ugly by nature conceded, yet the fact remains plain to see: the ones I write in flat assembler are infinitely more readable, all while allegedly under the influence of crack cocaine, see the top of this very rant for an example.

Thusly, the linked code perfectly illustrates how high-level languages inevitably fall into a jungled mess of complexity, which tends to permeate their syntax, and that is the point I made.

What the relationship is should then be clear: rust does not alleviate nor improve on this issue, of which C++ is the prime example, and only adds further complexities of its own, which exacerbates the problem -- hence the statement that it did not learn lessons, or more snarkily, "its C++ but worse".

As for how to improve: read the argument. Complexity is inevitable at the high-level and that leaves only one answer, but can *we* afford to use assembly? Generally speaking: no, not in a professional capacity.

Continued in the next comment.

@12bitfloat

macro_rules! forward {

( $( $fn:ident( $($param:ident: $ty:ty),* ) $( -> $ret:ty)? ),+ $(,)? ) => {

impl Build {

$( fn $fn(&self, $($param: $ty),* ) $( -> $ret)? {

self.config.$fn( $($param),* )

} )+

}

}

}

src: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/...

Critique: It's shit.

Another question?

@12bitfloat I don't recall defending perl or C++.

@12bitfloat Well, you have no eyes, on top of no cock.

@12bitfloat Takes two eyes.

EDIT: One may suffice.

@12bitfloat Pardon, you did not learn how to read.

"[rust syntax], had it learned lessons from the innumerable syntactical idiocies of C++, would be a lot better off."

7mar.

@retoor rust, specifically, suffers from it's syntax primarily.

I say 'specifically' because any compiler that gives you a high number of features/guarantees is inevitably going to result in the language itself requiring the programmer learn many more concepts to utilize it effectively, to say nothing of the striking increases in compilation time.

But this is true for *many* languages other than C++ and rust, it's a problem inherent to high-level programming in and of itself, in that you're stacking complexity, which leads to the 'befuddling' quality of code -- ie, there's too much shit to keep in your head to fully understand how anything at all works without mind-altering, preferably injectable drugs.

rust syntax, had it learned lessons from the innumerable syntactical idiocies of C++, would be a lot better off. However, the language leans on and propagates said intellectual failures of humanity, resulting in its decisive failure to fulfil the promise of replacing C and C++.

@retoor Last I tried rustc it didn't likit when I `};`'d all over her face and tits, which ruined the mood for me.

Anyway, it's C++ but worse. Perhaps there's an octopusdog inside all of us.

whoops, 'path' is supposed to be 'ice'. That's the power of crack.

Happiness? It's a job. You get paid to do stuff no-one wants to do. 'Happy' is not part of the equation, kids.

But if I'm *okay* with my job, then yeah. It's pretty cool.

You want vengeance? Forget about noise. Smear dogshit on their doorknobs, that'll send a louder message.

I mean, respect where respect is due.

@retoor You're number two, but **NOT** in the fecal sense. More like figurative -- as in, that's the shit.

I was brewin' at 4:00 am on a copper mother-fucking RAKWE.

In my defense, it's Ramadan.

15: crack-smoking wizards. (hi)