Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!panix!.POSTED.spitfire.i.gajendra.net!not-for-mail
From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.programmer
Subject: Re: [meta] Harry Potter, Physics, Tools, Perception, etc. (was Re: Text
 based synchronous communication tool for Linux?)
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 00:55:48 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Message-ID: <vjdcak$k79$1@reader2.panix.com>
References: <vj44hq$3q2ag$1@dont-email.me> <vj71t7$f5ah$1@dont-email.me> <vjagvt$15umg$1@dont-email.me> <vjarv0$17q4j$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 00:55:48 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader2.panix.com; posting-host="spitfire.i.gajendra.net:166.84.136.80";
	logging-data="20713"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@panix.com"
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Originator: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)
Bytes: 4359
Lines: 72

In article <vjarv0$17q4j$1@dont-email.me>,
Janis Papanagnou  <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 10.12.2024 23:57, James Kuyper wrote:
>> On 12/9/24 10:21, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>>> On 09.12.2024 10:11, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 09:37:54 +0100
>> ...
>>>>> WRT IRC you may have missed the requirements in my OP; one was:
>>>>> * instantly/synchronously exchanging any typed characters
>>>>
>>>> I suggest you consult harry potter for that then.
>>>
>>> (I suppose here you just want play the troll.) But how does that
>>> comment address in any way my question? - I don't know anything
>>> about "Harry Potter", BTW; if you want to discuss that better
>>> open an own post in an appropriate newsgroup.
>> 
>> Key feature of "Harry Potter" - he lives in a world where magic is real.
>
>Thanks. - So much I knew of those books/films. :-)
>It appears to be impossible to evade hearing of Harry Potter. ;-)
>(I've even seen some, to be honest, but not sure I saw any film
>completely. I like fantasy, but not this sort of fairy tales;
>so it's useless to discuss that specific genre-variant with me.)
>
>It was merely meant as a hint to the poster to focus on the topic
>if there's any intention to seriously contribute (which his post,
>in content and tone, obviously anyway didn't intend).
>
>> This is Muttley's way of telling you that he thinks that your
>> specification can only be achieved by using magic, that it's
>> incompatible with the real world.
>> Taken literally, "instantly" is indeed impossible, but I doubt that you
>> intended it literally.
>
>Given that in Relativity Theory instant transmission is impossible -
>light (electromagnetic waves) and information can travel only with
>light speed! - and that quantum entanglement in Quantum Theory is
>unlikely to have been in my mind when talking about our profane IT
>tools theme, it should indeed have been obvious - but probably not
>to Muttley - that it's of course not meant literally. - It was the
>colloquial "instantly" used in a comparison to the other ways tools
>typically communicate.
>
>What was meant, if not obvious, I think could be easily derived
>from my original post already, where I mentioned three prevalent
>types of typical systems; write a complete message and <send> it
>(to be seen at the addressee), write a line and <send> it, and -
>what I meant - while typing the peer could see what you type (and
>without an explicit <send>). - I'm sure most people understood it,
>given their responses. - And tools with such characteristic have
>also already been proposed.

Taking what you wrote literally is an obtuse reading
of the original requirements, indeed.  It's rather
obvious that the requirement was character-at-a-time
transmission, as opposed to batching into larger
messages (lines or otherwise).

>Only Muttley seems to didn't get it, especially given that he
>suggested things like IRC (that were clearly ruled out in my OP),
>and that he's obviously never seen tools like the ones mentioned
>(by me and others here); 'phone' and the various 'talk' variants.
>
>(I postpone or ignore posts from people that behave like him. My
>longish post might help him to understand, or maybe not - I don't
>care much.)

Muttley's the guy who doesn't know what a compiler is,
right?

	- Dan C.