that said, inebriation is pathetic in measure of performance against being sober. there's nothing I can get done inebriated that I can't get done better, faster, and with more focus when I'm sober. with the minor caveat of non-mind-altering drugs like caffeine and sugar being super helpful for a sober mind, any actual inebriate (rather than just a 'drug') only slows things down.

so, personally, I just see them as two modes that any particular person can engage, regardless of how "smart" or "dumb" someone might consider them (whatever that means).

where I always find myself frustrated is that I have my best ideas and make my best connections when I'm inebriated, but I have my best structuralization and conceptions of those ideas only when I'm sober. so I have to remember the inebriated stuff to be able to craft it when sober. which is honestly kind of a drag to capture while inebriated and kind of a slog to read back while sober.

not rude. not implying anything about the questioner. still the general sentiment of "google it; that's not my job". if you admonish people as being "incredibly rude", you should be talking about things that people actually do with enough regularity to make the point worth making. that is pretty widely understood.

at some point, these two competing interests are going to find out that they're paying each other to stare at each other's dwindling profits, but my bet is that it's going to be a while yet before that wake up call. and it will be an even longer churn into something else because no one is going to admit that they were funneling money into nonsense for years. they're going to "adjust strategies" to "modernize against changing markets" for "new potential growth". all shit that takes a long time to do because it's a half measure aimed at saving face to investors. so it'll work for a long time just based on the momentum of bullshit. =/

the point is that whomever you are going to be doing business with (giving your data to) is eventually going to let their true colors show. happened with jack and twitter, happened with mark and facebook. if bsky is any good now - which is not a claim I'm making - it will eventually get worse because the ideology behind what they do is a toxic one that prioritizes growth and self-aggrandizement, or at the very least deprioritizes the value that individual users have to the success of an organization.

so I choose not to do business with people who are telegraphing, loudly, that one day they'll choose themselves over me, at my expense if I'll let them. and remind myself of that and let others know about it. I think I do it relatively fairly - by providing a balanced take on the practical features vs the abstract moralizing. simple as.

ETA: as far as spiting my own face, I...uh.. I still use git? I just use it elsewhere. not sure where I'm losing the practical battle here. there is no feature tangled provides that I miss out on by hosting my git elsewhere. and there are honestly a few features that I gain from doing so. so... if anyone's being impractical here, it's not me.

RESPONSE EDIT (clear and intentional rate-limit evasion): hey thanks! that changes things quite a bit! Now I'm curious how well Claude could vibe-code the AI out of that project. Mostly just for the irony of it, but I can't deny that it would probably be faster than doing it myself - at least to start.

anyway, I appreciate the simple and straightforward solution without getting side-tracked by how my ignorance and misunderstandings made you feel.

RESPONSE EDIT (clear and intentional rate-limit evasion): It's not paranoia; I'm not concerned if they "take" my content. I write open source, CC0 licensed software. I couldn't give a fuck about anyone doing literally anything they want to do with the code I write. Literally take it and call it your own, for all I care. If I can return the interrogation, why are you so concerned with ownership? Why was that the first place your mind jumped to? Paraphrasing: where is the need for this insane level of "if you've got nothing to hide..." submission?

Like I said: it's about trust. They want me to trust them. You, for some inexplicable reason, seem really upset that I won't trust them. Neither of the parties have given me any reason to trust them. Just insistence that I should, if I want to use their product. And while I entirely agree with that rationale, I don't understand why I get clapbacks for stating that I intend to adhere to that agreement entirely! Won't use the product because they won't give me what I need to trust them. That should be making everyone happy, right? I know I'm happy with the arrangement, at least.

Aside from all that, and far more relevant to my actual comments: another user pointed out the repository where they DO offer the transparency that I'm asking for. So your entire hissy fit is moot when you could have just pointed out that I was wrong in my understanding of what they offered. I mean, that would have gotten in the way of your sycophantic leap to the defense of the company I was so hellaciously attacking, so I understand why a good capitalist bootlicker might not think of that first, but at least now we both know!

sorry to ask, but the website seems very light on any actual technical detail about how they are achieving their privacy claims - at least in terms I can parse to make them understandable to me.

ETA: just to be clear - that's a genuine question. I don't know much about monero, so if it really is possible to have untraceable money, that seems like a prudent investment for precaution. I've just always assumed that digital money is inherently traceable, so I always assumed genuine privacy is a mirage. I assume I'm wrong about that, somehow, so I'm curious about the mechanisms of that anonymity.

and, to be clear, it's an earnest question. like I've said elsewhere, I have concerns about over-reliance on the tech, but once it all moves local, a lot of those concerns become much more trivial. so I'm curious if other people have concerns that remain pressing and practical.

ETA: I'm aware that Claude wouldn't take 3 hours to do this, while using its massive warehouses of GPUS. I'm estimating what I think is a reasonable time for a single-gpu device to produce something workable.

and while I know they can do the nitty gritty ui work fine, I feel like I can work just as fast, or faster, on UI without them than I can with them. with them it's a lot of "no, not that, you changed too much/too little/the wrong thing", but without them I just execute because it's a domain I'm familiar with.

So my general idea of them is that they are "90% machines". Great at doing all of the "heavy lifting" bullshit of initial setup or large structural refactoring (that doesn't actually change functionality, just prepares for it) that I never want to do anyway, but not necessary and often unhelpful for filling in that last 10% of the project just the way I want it.

of course, since any good PM knows that 90% of the code written only means 50% of the project finished (at best), it still feels like a hollow win. So I often consider the situation in the same way as that last paragraph. Am I letting the ease of the initial setup degrade my ability to setup projects without these tools? does it matter, since project setup and refactoring are one-and-done, project-specific, configuration-specific quagmires where the less thought about fiddly perfect text-matching, the better? can I use these things and still be able to use them well (direct them on architechture/structure) if I keep using them and lose grounded concepts of what the underlying work is? good questions, as far as I'm concerned.

I do think aligning the semantics will be the easier part, honestly, because I'm only trying to transpile the supported source for the game engine. Since that's all written in typescript and I'm not guaranteeing full parity if you are trying to transpile arbitrary ts/js (only the source that can be parsed the same way the game engine is parsed), I'm expecting it to be a near 1-to-1 conversion. I started writing everything in C# and copied the structure to JS, knowing that this was the eventual plan, so the JS can actually be re-written as C# with a pretty simple regex tokenizer.

My hope, here, is that by having the code morphed into an IR, that the IR would be some kind of well-known IR that - for instance - C# could also be morphed into and - therefore - would allow automatic parsing back and forth. From what you're saying, though, it sounds like IRs don't use a common structure for describing code (I'm guessing because of the semantic misalignment you mention between a wide variety of different paradigms?), so this would only work if I made the map from IR to C# which would be just as complex (or more so) than just regexing my JS into C#. If I've got that right, that's a bummer, but understandable. If I'm wrong, though, happy to learn more!