"John Gebbie" <me@johngebbie.com> writes:

> Hi Joseph! I'm glad numen's help.
>
> It's really not clear, but unfortunately the "Updating recognizer
> vocabulary in runtime" section/demo is just a about limiting the
> vocabulary that's already there, like how numen limits the vocabulary
> to the phrases for accuracy.
>
> You could technically use numen with a different model, but I don't
> know how you can add words to the small models.
>
> This Vosk pull request would maybe make it possible and without model

"John Gebbie" <me@johngebbie.com> writes:

> Thanks for sharing! I've just started a list:
> https://sr.ht/~geb/awesome-numen

Very cool!!

Joseph

Here's my WIP numen config for other Emacs users:

https://git.sr.ht/%7Ebreatheoutbreathein/dotfiles/tree/master/item/.config/numen/phrases/emacs.phrases

Best,

Joseph

Hello John!

Thank you so much for numen!!! One question I have is how to add new
words. When dictating this email, I have to spell out the word "numen,"
and I gather from the VOSK docs that it's possible to add new words:

https://alphacephei.com/vosk/adaptation

Would it be possible to expose this functionality with numen?

Gratefully,

Joseph

Daniel Mendler <mail@daniel-mendler.de> writes:

> I suggest to copy new functions temporarily to the package in question
> with an fboundp check, with an additional TODO comment. We can
> synchronize with Compat afterwards. Providing a public API won't work
> since Compat is not included in Emacs itself. A design criterion of
> Compat is also to keep the public API surface as small as possible.

fboundp won't work here because copy-tree is available in earlier
versions of Emacs. Since its behavior changed in 30, we could do a
version check + TODO comment?

This contribution should not require copyright assignment.

Best,

Joseph

---
 README.md | 3 +--
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/README.md b/README.md
index 8332374..5b06a5d 100644
--- a/README.md
+++ b/README.md
[message trimmed]

hanna <hanna@hanna.lol> writes:
> Let's say you allow two accounts to share the same SSH key, you go to
> push your code via `git push git@git.sr.ht:~user/repo`, both users now
> have the same SSH key, which user is the git server supposed to assume
> is pushing? Do both users have access to the git repo? Do both users
> have write access? Can both users even read the repo?
>
> Allowing two users to share the same key makes it ambiguous as to
> which account the commits are being pushed from.

Thank you - that makes sense!

Hello Drew,

According to
https://lists.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/sr.ht-discuss/%3CYIgMbZa5H%2BRsQbC7%40blue032%3E#%3CYIgQ+Rf80V7NX8l7@blue032%3E
, two sourcehut accounts can't share the same ssh key. Why not?

Thank you!

Joseph

Hi Alex,

I hope the new year is treating you well!

How can we normalize the results provided by TrustNet's `getRankings`
method? An example to illustrate my question:

Given some trust assignments like:

[
  {
    src: 'alice',
    dst: 'bob',
    weight: 1

I like the idea of automatically assigning 0 trust to all peers which
lack a manual trust assignment. This would improve the UX by making it
possible to display a list of "new" or "unknown" peers, ensuring that
users never lose track of a peer they once found in u4u.

Still, users might want to be able to search through all trusted and
unknown peers. This is where the functionality of `getKnownURLs` would
come in handy.



> * moderators
>
>   Use TrustNet's `getMostTrusted` and `getAllTrusted` with a second