What do you mean, Johnny Enzyme? What is your take on attention spans?

I guess they told that to you as well, given you are right there

Yeah, the green number shows the improvement, and Babbel users improved more. What the green number doesn’t tell you is how much time it took to get there. If you look at that, Babbel is more inefficient than LingQ and Rosetta Stone.

Here: https://comparelanguageapps.com/index.html and here: https://comparelanguageapps.com/Vocabulary-or-Grammar-Proficiency.html

:)

I have a suggestion that is not FOSS, but it is privately held so the pressure to be profitable each quarter is not at all the same as publicly held companies.

Check out the privacy policies of LingQ and Rosetta Stone. Idk if they’re good, but I know they’re the most efficient language-learning apps right now. They require the least amount of minutes using them to achieve the highest scores in standardized language tests.

I hope someday any normal Linux software will be usable in Apple hardware. Unfortunately, there are hurdles.

One of the biggest hurdles was getting code accepted into the Linux kernel.

This became very frustrating for the previous Asahi Linux lead developer. He would push upstream code and the Linux developers would not accept it.

Why didn’t they accept it? Because it was written in memory-safe Rust and not in memory-unsafe C. Old Linux developers don’t want to deal with Rust. So they just refuse to include Asahi Linux updates into normal Linux software.

There is a group that does studies on different apps. They look at how much time people spend using a language-learning app and how much each minute of studying adds to a standardized language test. Turns out, Rosetta Stone and LingQ are the most efficient per minute spent in those apps. If I remember correctly, both are privately held companies, which I see as a better sign than Duolingo’s public listing. I don’t know about their privacy policies, though.

Thanks for pointing that out. Indeed the goal is to make a fair comparison. Here’s a better image:

I agree with you and think it’s worthwhile to critically evaluate fonts.

So what happens if we evaluate cursive font? Well, for most people, loopy cursive is hard to read.

To understand why loopy cursive is problematic, here’s an excerpt from two experts on handwriting:

Conventional looped cursive has not held up to modern life and is being abandoned by most adults, because

• Its decorative loops and excessive joins obscure visual cues,
• It loses legibility when written quickly,
• It doesn’t reflect the writing we see in type or on screen, and
• 100% joined writing is typically slower and no more legible than writing that joins most, but not all letters.

So loopy cursive sucks, but does that mean that we should straight up ditch cursive altogether? Are there fonts that are quick to write and legible? Turns out, those same experts built a handwriting system, the Getty-Dubay system. Their writing system does not seek to “look pretty and fancy-pants” (to quote you). Instead, their writing system tries to “communicate clearly” (to quote you again). They built something logical and pragmatic.

How can you be sure of what I’m saying? Well, you be the judge!

Here’s a picture of the Getty-Dubay fonts, both print and cursive:

Here’s a comparison of different cursive fonts:

If you want more information, here’s a resource you can check out: https://handwritingsuccess.com/why-cursive/

So yeah, the way I see it, loopy cursive is hell, and italic-based cursive is the best of both worlds: italic-based cursive is fast to write and easy to read.

This study is from 2015.

Right?

I think it’s exactly a decade later, 2025. https://budgetlab.yale.edu/research/evaluating-impact-ai-labor-market-current-state-affairs

Do you know about Cynefin? Would you disagree if I say that religion is a complex Cynefin system and therefore can’t be entirely predictable? Would you say Lutheranism and the Theology of Liberation are equally as problematic as the KKK and Nazis?

The problem you’re describing (open sourcing critical software) could both increase the capabilities of adversaries and also make it easier for adversaries to search for exploits. Open sourcing defeats security by obscurity.

Leaving security by obscurity aside could be seen as a loss, but it’s important to note what is gained in the process. Most security researchers today advocate against relying on security by obscurity, and instead focus on security by design and open security. Why?

Security by obscurity in the digital world is very easily defeated. It’s easy to copy and paste supposedly secure codes. It’s easy to smuggle supposedly secret code. “Today’s NSA secrets become tomorrow’s PhD theses and the next day’s hacker tools.”

What’s the alternative for the military? If you rely on security by design and open security for military equipment, it’s possible that adversaries will get a hold of the software, but they will get a hold of software that is more secure. A way to look at it is that all the doors are locked. On the other hand, insecure software leaves supposedly secret doors open. Those doors can be easily bashed by adversaries. So much for trying to get the upper hand.

The choice between (1) security by obscurity and (2) security by design and open security is ultimately the choice between (1) insecurity for all and (2) security for all. Security for all would be my choice, every time. I want my transit infrastructure to be safe. I want my phone to be safe. I want my election-related software to be safe. I want safe and reliable software. If someone is waging a war, they’re going to have to use methods that can actually create a technical asymmetry of power, and insecure software is not the way to gain the upper hand.

We share the goal of making the world more private. I’m not trying to be cheeky or mean. I’m genuinely curious. Would you be against reading to learn how to talk more compellingly?

Omg I just squinted and saw the pirate ships. Thanks for your contribution.

I couldn’t believe this interview was real. Looked it up. It’s real. Holy crap.