I love neovim I write my neocities stuff on it.

Thanks guys! Fedora is a solid distro. I used to use the Fedora xfce spin for a while myself. The annoying stuff I remember off the top my head are the package manager, which was slow sometimes (I heard they fixed it recently), and Fedora pushing SElinux on me even though I don't care about it. Other than that, I generally liked it. It strikes a good balance between being stable without its packages being outdated

As for configuring my neovim. I use an init.lua with a bunch of custom stuff, a few plugins I wrote for myself, as well as a handful of thrid party ones. It's a little messy because it reflects quirks and personal usage patterns.

Configuration isn't that important if you're new to vi/vim/nvim because you'll mostly focus on learning the editor itself. Make sure you go through :Tutor to get started and then checkout the :help pages which are surprisingly helpful. Also, neovim has reasonable defaults for the most part.

If you're comfing from vim, then :help vim-differences will tell you what to expect. You can also keep using your existing .vimrc if you have one.

Do you find Arch reliable as a daily driver? I like the idea of only installing what I truly need without any unnecessary bloat, but I guess I still have a couple of reservations. Do you have any specific pros/cons that stand out to you from using it?

I'm new to vim, so I suppose I'll just focus on familiarising myself with the editor itself for now. I have read the defaults are pretty sane. Thanks for the resource recommendations. :]

>'I imagine you can already see how neat Neovim can be.' Confident, aren't they? This interactive tutorial is pretty awesome.

Arch is mostly reliable, but it has occasional hiccups. Every once in a blue moon, updates require manual intervention with the instructions given in https://archlinux.org/news/. A few years ago, an upgrade broke wifi and needed the user to manually fix it up. Guess who decided to upgrade before their online class? :)

my personal experience has been mostly positive, but it does act funny sometimes. For example, Last year a minor kernel update introduced a bug that caused the kernel to panic specifically when plugged into an HDMI. It seemed as if the bug only affected my combination of hardware since no one else complained. After a bit of troubleshooting, I gave up and downgraded back to an older kernel, hoping they'll fix it later

Nevertheless, I still like Arch. I like it because other distros keep annoying me in different ways. For example: - Debian has ancient packages (by design) - Ubuntu pushes their stupid slow snaps (leave me alone) - Fedora begs me to use SELinux (I won't use it)

- Arch avoids patching packages, unlike other distros. For example, Fedora adds a bunch of dumb bookmarks to firefox. I didn't ask for that; Leave my firefox alone!!! Debian used to rename firefox to "icecat" for some political reason I don't care about. I don't want an icecat. Give me firefox!!! - Arch makes you build a minimal system that you understand. I find that this makes troubleshooting more straight forward

But I'm also not crazy about Arch. I just happen to use it, but I can probably live happily with something else. If I wasn't using Arch I'll be using Fedora, I think.

Glad you're enjoying (neo)vim :)

neovim and minimal distros are great. I get everyone has different experiences but I daily drove Arch for about a year before switching to Void which I have probably been on for 4-5 years? I have not had any significant problems myself (maybe near the beginning I did). I hope that you have a similar experience :)

I also noticed this. I managed to archive his last two posts

the chihuahuas are underway...

I hope he comes again

I'm not familiar with Wittgenstein's work and I can't seem to find anything about a two seeds argument other than this review I found https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/wittgenstein-in-exile/

That would be the one! I'm realizing now that it's really hard to find online.

From what I understood from the quoted snippet, this thought experiment accidentally flirts with teleology. The seed is intrinsically oriented towards becoming a plant :P

Also, I'm not sure how it challenges physicalist intuition. The physicalist can argue that the seed's genetics, along with the environment, are the only variable that account for the existence of the plant.

I remember my high school philosophy classmates despairing over having to study his picture theory of language. :D (They were confused.)

What it did for me was make me realize that our belief that the seeds development into a plant must be in some way mechanical, resulting from the material structure of the seed, has no logical law behind it. That's just an intuition built up from decades of finding causes that are mechanical. Basically that physicalism has an ontological commitment that it can't prove, even aside from qualia.

The intuition isn't proven wrong so much as proven to be an intuition, something merely built up out of inference. My first thought reading it was, "But there must be!". But that's not really a must, that's just a must so long as we're wearing our physicalism-glasses; the important thing it does is show that those glasses aren't fundamentally right.

Oh I see what you mean now! Yes, you are right. It's common to default into mechanistic explanations for anything, even if it's hard. The physicalist might even call it "the hard problem of seeds"

And Chesterton is too poetic/paradoxical for his own good, I agree.

Thank you :)