GTK3 isn't deprecated (like GTK2 is), and there is no rush to port things to GTK4 yet. In terms of it being 'pre-alpha' (besides the docs, which in my experience before was always lagging behind), everything in the roadmap is basically done: https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/GTK/Roadmap/GTK4
On the other hand, the changes in Gnome 40 were not as massive as the change from 2 to 3, and to me at least the change felt more incremental than disruptive (of course, the transition period is always a bit rough, some non-essential extensions for gnome-shell didn't work for me after the change, but eventually everything I needed was ported--I even dropped some extensions). I feel that saying that 'a lot of the work from 3 was thrown away' is an overstatement.
I had no connection to the ZZT community, and I loved the ZZT book. I think it captures very well the feeling of being a sort of outcast and trying to express oneself through art. I always remember the bit about being excited about a project and then waking up to the next day and feeling just so... inadequate to the task.
First, you check if the instance that you are subscribing to caters to your interests - signing up to a random instance is bound to be useless. Then you can just follow people from the local feed, or something that catches your fancy from the global feed. And if you find a mastodon user from a different instance that you are interested in (maybe in a google search), you can follow them and the system will redirect you so your instance connects you to them.
Just tried recording from my laptop's mic - the reported latency from Ardour was 5,3ms (with 256 samples/buffer). It crashed when I went down to 128 samples/buffer.
> the study of philosophy is to a significant degree concerned with a survey of the historic development of certain traditions of thought, and ideas.
Have you actually been exposed to any high-level contemporary philosophical research? While it is true that many philosophers do care about the history of ideas, this is quite often done in order to treat various philosophical questions systematically (for many philosophers, it's all about the questions, not about any 'philosophy' that needs to be studied). Besides, for many philosophers there is also some interest to integrate their work with the work of researchers in many other disciplines. If you work in philosophy of language, it would be ridiculous not to try to acquire some working knowledge of linguistics and cognitive science. If you work in epistemology (aka the theory of knowledge), you have to have some knowledge of cognitive science, game theory, computer science, psychology, evolutionary theory, and so on, just to know what other philosophers might be discussing.
GP's claim could be parsed in many different ways (what is 'understanding'? what is 'the structure of knowledge'?), and the suggestion that whatever that is is 'predominantly done' in computer science betrays some ignorance (or perhaps some willing obtuseness) about the alternatives. That you think that their claim was meaningless says more about you than about the claim. Why, instead of disagreeing with GP immediately, don't you ask them what they mean? You know, engage with a philosophical thought?
While a monotonic graph can tend to zero the area under the graph can still be infinite.
using blanket terms to be filled with meaning is a valid strategy.
With that in mind, I didn't specify that OP's claim was meaningless. I just handed back the ball. Provocation is maybe not the best discurs strategy (and provocation is maybe not the most precise term for it), but it worked out well for me.
Your response gave me something to think about. Alas, I won't be able to summarize it. I can only sum up that I am not going to indulge in an argument about who and what should be considered "high-level contemporary research". If that is the main concern of your comment, you are just making my point.
More over, if philosophy is eventually a blanket term that is continuously redefined, then I tried to take as much out of it as possible by marking CS and maths as a huge contrast, however not disjunct (nor independent, authark) fields, which should leave huge room for interpretation that is topical to this venue, as a counterforce to the popular view that sees all humanities emerging from the tradition of philosophy--conversely: e.g., the meme of all link trials in Wikipedia ending at the philosophy article--equivalently: philosophy subsuming all... which is a grandious claim. High-level in that sense would be philosophy of philosophy, perhaps, for which there is no authority that I'm aware of.
It's an interesting topic indeed, but in critique of OP's remark about held believes I was trying to get at something slightly different (hoping that it aligns eventually). Namely that truth is often enough that which doesn't need saying, which is however indistinguishable from void. Everything else is climbing towers of abstractions.
It's funny how these things go. In my circles at the beginning of the 2000s it was somewhat of a mantra that Radiohead's OK Computer or My Bloody Valentine's Loveless were the best albums from the 90s (I would go for the latter). Loveless was somewhat of a rediscovered thing; before that, I imagine that Nirvana's Nevermind was one of the most beloved.
For him, even the single square would not exist, only its many many ways it could be. And each separately.
> "No sólo le costaba comprender que el símbolo genérico perro abarcara tantos individuos dispares de diversos tamaños y diversa forma; le molestaba que el perro de las tres y catorce (visto de perfil) tuviera el mismo nombre que el perro de las tres y cuarto (visto de frente)."
> "Not only he struggled to understand that the generic symbol for dog would encompass so many disparate individuals of many sizes and diverse shapes; he was upset that the dog at three and fourteen (from the side) had the same name that the dog at quarter past three (from the front)."
"The challenge that the novel of ideas faces: how does one integrate the exposition and discussion of ideas in the context of a novel (when the origin of those ideas is not the novel itself)?"
"[The techniques used in the novel of ideas] are in conflict with some expectations [enumerated here...] about how a novel works, that in turn were established as novels became more than historical retellings and romances stories".
On the other hand, the changes in Gnome 40 were not as massive as the change from 2 to 3, and to me at least the change felt more incremental than disruptive (of course, the transition period is always a bit rough, some non-essential extensions for gnome-shell didn't work for me after the change, but eventually everything I needed was ported--I even dropped some extensions). I feel that saying that 'a lot of the work from 3 was thrown away' is an overstatement.