Hey,

I've been looking forward to self-hosting my favourite piece of Drew's software
that is https://lists.sr.ht/ which IMHO is totally superior to Mailman and much
of what I've seen in the mailing list space.

Unfortunately, I've run into the opaqueness of my own Mailcow[1] mailing setup
and I must admit that I don't understand it all to well? Except for the modest
fact that it does rely on Postfix and Dovecot among other 25 programs that
apparently have to do with hosting a modern mail server. Naturally, the first
thing I did was read Drew's manual[2] on how you're meant to set this thing up
as well as this blog[3].

> This forwards mail to @lists.sr.ht to the LMTP socket, and processes mail to

Please don't forget that logos isn't a programming language, but rather
a whole new discursive practice. What you do in–logos is very different
to what you would do in a programming language.

"He speaks in tongues."

"She deals in logos."

"They can't manage the logotics of it."

Please make an effort to incorporate this word, and be versatile about
it!

-badt

Hey,

I can't help but entertain the comparison!

You're making a very good point when you mention that actors are somehow
transcendent with respect to the environment and language in which they
are being displayed.

>They may even don't know which actor is a human being and which is not!

That's right.

They might be well in the dark on who's who, but one way or the other it
doesn't change anything— the rules specify what can and cannot be said

I love mathematicians, mathematicians hate me.

They hate me not because I'm Muslim, or because I write Rust, or because
I'm gay, but rather— because unlike them, I deal in pure Revelation; as
opposed to clever reasonings mathematicians enjoy so much.

Reason about this: How many holes are there in a balloon?

Mathematicians will smugly tell you there's like -1 holes, or something.
"Well, you, see, topologically speaking..." blah blah which is hilarious
yes— I must admit, but not exactly revealing anything about any thing is
it?

And that's what mathematicians don't understand about philosophy.

Hey,

The computer programming bit is totally uninteresting.

At far as natural language processing goes, it has much more to do with
maths, and linear algebra in particular. Most computer programmers have
no idea this is possible and to what extent it will become possible in
the nearest future, despite literally working in the industry for many
years!

That's where I find a striking similarity between the French bourgeoisie
and the programming community, oh, programming language design community
in particular—

Hello Ivan,

Your feedback is 100% valid and in fact EBNF is our top priority at the
moment.

There's some 4000 lines of Go code in my internal logos codebase, but
most of it is outdated as it relates to the outdated version of the
language informal specification [1].

I had multiple EBNF drafts and auto-generated parsers for that matter,
but none of them are particularly good. What's changed a lot is the
newly introduced bargaining semantic, which is supposed to effectively
solve incapsulation.

Salute,

And please stop saying the natural languages are shit! Because they are
simply not.

You're not special, and these words that you use are not magic, but very
specific things that may or may not refer to a set of other very things,
sensical or not they may be.

Language models are short of voodoo.

You can think of one as being an encoding, effectively– it's a computer
program that can act on information by encoding and decoding it back and
forth into the machine-understandable form using this little thing called

Hey,

Thanks for asking. I'm not sure if this deserves a dedicated thread, but
no problemo, I'm happy to answer these questions.

>Ok I got the part about using some repository that (magicallly) secures
>semantics, the more misterous part is what actually gives this thing
>computational capabilities.

There is nothing inherently magical about semantics in Logos.

If you were to look at the (heavily outdated) spec which can be found
over at https://aletheia.icu/~badt/logos/spec/ you would see soon enough
that logos is cathartic in a way; at least to people preoccupied with

You can’t begin to imagine my own excitement!

I’ve been essentially working over this for the last 3 years, very happy
to be able to get the word out.

> what math formalism is behind this? Cat theory? Type theory?

You see, my background in logic is Frege, Wittgenstein, Ramsey.

Even though I make my living almost entirely on the engineering side of
things, theory-wise I'm coming from a very, very different place, which
is what I like to think gives me a fresh perspective on the programming
language crisis, or the unforgiving lack of creativity thereof.

I've received complaints that my texts aren't accessible, impenetrable.

This is perfectly fair, I've always had doubts about my texts and to be
honest, I'm sure they're crude at best. Having said that, I try harder
and harder to better communicate my ideas.

And will continue doing so.

In this edition of the leet list I will discuss logos the language, why
logos of all things and what are all things logos. Be prepared for bits
and pieces of programming jargon as well as basic philosophical ideas,
but this time around I will try to explain myself without having to
bring any of the big words.