Pika

Sorry, make legal requires the lawyer subroutine which requires full access to everything to verify you have the money to be able to make such a claim

I had to look up what that was because I’ve never heard of that law. I like that, and will likely use that in the future. I have to agree though, but from the other direction. Yeah, my response post to the LLM fallacy list was a lot of that, I knew it would be going into it though as any LLM response interpreting data on a specific level like that, generally needs that. That’s ultimately why I don’t like using LLMs in the first place. Because you have to go back and fix it anyway. (Note the LLM say that’s a fallacy since it doesn’t /always/ happen, and it will also post a fallacy saying that I’m saying that it will do so but I digress)

I responded to the first fallacy post mostly to show how inaccurate LLMs can be when you use it to interpret dialogue. They are great for summarizing concepts and finding data sets, But actually classifying or generating information is one of their weak points. A good chunk of the claimed fallacies could have been summarized by it either misinterpreting the post, ignoring other parts of the post and or giving a redirection in order to fit it’s mantra. And some of them just straight out added additional fallacies to the mix as well.

And yea, I agree. I’m done with this conversation as well. We’re no longer talking about fish anymore, the topic adjusted to isn’t crediting or discrediting the initial posts since it’s all built off LLM false attribution & strays away from the topic of the community lol

lol, its insane the inaccuracy of the LLM in that. It made me chuckle. I can give it 1 and 2 as I gave it already, but for the sake of the chuckle I’ll start from the bottom to top:

• 25: its my opinion, can’t be a fallacy as it’s based off opinion, it’s not meant to change anyone’s mind or anything, its stating how I felt.
• 24: I’m not assuming anything, it was a question, the LLM can’t interpret it apparently.
• 23: it’s ignoring the critera/information I had already supplied prior to it thinking its based off objective
• 22: Again, its based off the fact that more users = better ability to find documentation and sharing it. this isn’t fallacious in nature.
• 21: this was just a warning cause I’ve seen it myself (I have 6 posts in the past 4 weeks that were technical and ended up being nuked)
• 20: see 24
• 19: my experiences are somehow an appeal to common practice? Like that’s my experiences with it
• 18: unrelated to the current discussion but I can see why it would have it
• 17: again my actual experiences with it that doesn’t make it a fallacy
• 16: I love that it’s trying to say I don’t know my friend group’s shell usage as if I don’t share scripts with them already.
• 15: Has nothing to do with the argument and is actually a misdirection in itself.
• 14: I’ve always argued both metrics, I don’t see where it’s seeing a goalpost moving here… lol
• 13: I said the exact opposite of what it’s claiming. I acknowledged that it would require effort and that wasn’t something I wanted to do
• 12: I didn’t assume it was better in this case, I stated since it was easier to find scripts, it was less work to do
• 11: I never claimed the stated assumption here, I stated why I did. It was counter intuitive to me, that doesn’t mean it’s not intuitive to others, that itself is also an illicit minor
• 10: changes the comment away from my personal experience and tries to redirect it into a reason why others shouldn’t use it.
• 9: Yes I agree it’s a generalization, that was the entire point of that, to show that most of my experiences shown that, and as such why I don’t use it.
• 8: Invalid, I’m not attacking you, I even acknowledged that I can see why some people use it, I just can’t
• 7: This isn’t a slippery slope as it’s accurate. There is less info available on fish shell, just due to the length of amount of time it’s available.
• 6: Invalid claim
• 5: I can kind of see this, but it’s not like I don’t think it doesn’t have it’s merits, its just not for me.
• 4: Such evidence is bad on it’s own, but when supported by facts it’s valid
• 3: I don’t think I understand this linking to authority but LLM’s definitely struggled converting bash to fish for me.
• 2: already explained this one in parent post
• 1: same as 2

I love LLM’s at times, I can understand some info they give but, man do they not know how to read dialogue.

argumentum populum would not apply here, since that one is based off populous opinion and I’m making the logical guess that since fish is the least used shell of the three we have talked about that it’s usage would be proportional as well. This might not be the case obviously which was why I was asking if you did share your scripts. Lack of usage was my biggest reason for bailing on it. I do a lot of script sharing with my friend group and I’m not wanting to have to do everything twice in order to be able to share it.

If you were looking for a argument from fallacy case, your best fallacy would be likely I believe appeal to probability, would be the close but not match as I am assuming most of your friends are not using fish, but I’m also basing it off the knowledge that it has a significantly smaller user base which makes it more likely. or possibly an illicit minor which would be the path of “My friends don’t use fish, so it’s unlikely that your friends use fish” which would potentially be valid, but again I am questioning the case not stating it as an exact, but since my initial question was based based off statistics and experience, I would go with the first one.

but back to the topic:

Documentation wise? I have read it. The examples are nice don’t get me wrong, but its layout needs work, the examples need better real world use cases and struggling to search for how to do something because the makers of the shell in their infinite wisdom decided to make a new keyword for something that was already stupid easy to use is just a hard pass for me (like I said I had already learned bash prior to this, whereas you had not learned bash). Not to mention with bash or zsh, I run into an issue I can just search the issue. What would take me 2 minutes to search for a problem with a script using zsh took me 10-15 minutes of research with fish and sometimes it wouldn’t even solve the issue at hand and required just rewriting it completely. Usually my path of research would require me to look up the issue using fish, find no solution so look up the issue using bash, then have to convert it to fish. Sometimes the issue would work fully in bash, and just not in fish. I came to the conclusion that if I was having to convert parts of it to bash anyway in order to research issues with it, I might as well do it in bash to begin with.

I agree with you, the more people using it the more examples and documentation will be available as a result, but I’m not going to be a spearhead for it, I don’t want to have to exert more energy than necessary, and I found the gains I got using fish didn’t outweigh the losses. Like I said I might revisit the shell some day, maybe if it ever becomes super popular, but for now I have removed it and ported my scripts back to bash again.

ammendum: btw LLM’s do not like fish shell for bash to fish conversion. I had tried it a handful of times resolving an issue (deepseek had the most success of them) but it was almost always a try 3 or 4 times, get something that has nothing to do with it, or uses something that fish shell doesn’t support, and then have to clear the context or find another path for resolution.

ammendum2: also fair warning, the last 2 topics on fish shell that appeared in this community got nuked after 2 days, so it’s possible this entire thread will disappear as well(hopefully not but it seems to be a reoccurring issue).

zsh actually predates fish by almost 15 years and bash which 16 years while fish shell also ignores every standard known in favor of doing it’s own thing so yes I would say it’s re-inventing the wheel.

Fish is known as what’s called an exotic shell, meaning that it doesn’t adhere to what is considered standard for Linux systems, which would be POSIX compliance. Now most alternative shells have partial compliance, not full compliance. But fish didn’t have any compliance. It didn’t attempt it. Like you mentioned, its use case was meant to be an interactive shell. So scripting on it was a back burner project.

If it works for you, then that’s good. I tried it, hated the lack of information available for it, and hated the way that it didn’t follow standards. And at the end of the day, anything I made for it was exclusively for me due to the fact that I could no longer share configurations or chains with anyone else because they did not have fish shell. I’m sure it works for some but it didn’t fit my use case anywhere

That was the exact opposite with fish. I had already gotten fairly well first with bash by the time I started using it, and the way fish did it was just super counterintuitive to me.

I couldn’t get into the overall design of how it looked and I disliked how command substitution and the built in’s worked, Combined with the fact that it’s a lesser used shell, so there’s less information available on it. I just couldn’t do it.

You brought up a point though. That makes me ask. You must not have to share your scripts with anyone then, right? Fish has a very small user base in comparison to ZSH and Bash and when I make a script that’s more advanced I tend to want to share it with my friends and having them install a whole new shell just to run a script is just not helpful to me. ZSH is close enough to bash in compatibility that, generally speaking, if I want to share it, I can use zsh And then convert the minor discrepancies. Where with fish I have to redo the entire script.

This is a good way of putting it. It’s essentially ZSH with Autosuggest/complete and a theming agent. At least visual-wise.

When you get into the scripting and the hot keys aspect of it, they reinvent the wheel and everything is different., Like for example ,!! and other bangs(I think that’s the right word?) like that are not valid on fish, And everything to do with variables is different from adding to your path to setting variables to creating functions. Also checking your error code is going to be different as well as it doesn’t follow the $x style inputs and doesn’t support IFS and globbing works differently.

TLDR; fish is nice, but If you use it unless you want to relearn an entire type of language, keep your scripts on bash or zsh

or if you wanna see the bigger differences fish has a dedicated bash transition page

I went from bash to fish to zsh. I can see why people would like having fish as a shell. but I hated scripting on it and if I’m going to be triggering a different shell for scripts anyway, I might as well skip the middleman, not re-invent the wheel and just use zsh with plug-ins that way I only have two shells installed instead of three. Adding the auto-complete plugin and a theme plugin for zsh gives most of fishes base functionality and design while making it so I don’t need to worry about compatibility.

Maybe someday when I’m less code oriented, I will re-look at fish, but I don’t see it happening in the foreseeable future.

Aside from the opt out will potentially encourage bullying, I don’t really get their argument there tbh. By the logic they are using, federation as a whole would be a violation of their terms. Usage of the ActivityPub in it’s entirety would do the same thing they are complaining about. If you don’t want your data being cycled to god knows who, I would not recommend any ActivityPub platform and if you decide to anyway, disabling federation, and using authenticated endpoints. They are likely better off in a closed environment but even those generally are public access.

It reminds me of the people who used to have content licenses appended to their comments, I’m not convinced that having it was even enforceable due to federation.

I’m not sure how I feel about this. This is giving the false mentality that you aren’t being tracked/your data isn’t there. Like obviously they process data, and can link that data to a person, and its all public anyway. To say that they aren’t tracking you isn’t genuine. I think it would be better off saying “We don’t analyze your data” because they definitely track your data, that’s how the service works. if they didn’t then the service wouldn’t be able to properly function, but I digress.

yea thats fully understandable. also no idea why this post just showed in my feed, didn’t mean to revive a 4 month old comment 😅

my first go to for fixing every issue I have with a windows component

1. sfc /scannow
2. dism /online /cleanup-image /restorehealth

the amount of time that last command has fixed a core issue with the system is shocking but god that command takes forever

I’m more surprised that your school doesn’t go by the “Wipe and reimage” policy. Most every school now uses some form of cloud service. No reason to spend time troubleshooting when you can just do a stock image and have the student sign in again

In the admins defense. “Closed by peer” can indicate everything from a safe closure to an unsafe closure to a server connection terminating which causes the peer to terminate.

Like that’s a fair point of confusion.

What bugs me is when the error says something stupid specific and obvious such as JavaScript heap out of memory or dd: error writing *pathname*: No space left on device

that’s why any manual worth their salt has a “quick start” section at the beginning (I say this knowing most man pages fail at this or put it at the end which is super unhelpful)

Just give me common uses and flags, you can have your more indepth stuff at the end

I hard passed on vintage story. I was looking into the game, took one look at the community and the toxicity on their support forums and went “yep thats a hard pass”.

IMO the company should really do some cleansing on their starting topics. It doesn’t look good for a game when there’s active toxicity in the community forums arguing over if the game needs to be changed and telling people to get gud and that they didn’t have such things when starting out when they make super basic suggestions like starter equipment, or an actual tutorial.

They may have fixed that since then since its been a year or two, but that was a hard turnoff for me. A lesser known game needs community support to function and survive. Even minecraft mods have a vast amount of wikis and community support. An actively hostile community on the official community forums is not a good starting POV.

the main issue will be if they do a major API update right before they do it. Remember the great “flattening”? We lost many great mods when they did that because of the amount of changes they did to base code while simultaneously changing every ID in the game, while forge was also actively undergoing a major API change in how it worked. So as a result many mods stopped being developed at 1.12.

If they did a massive API rewrite right before fully ending support for java, the community will either have to accept another divide or completly forgo the new update and stay locked on the previous.

that is correct, you can use Geyser to allow bedrock to join java players. For console or any bedrock client that lacks the direct connection with servers you need to also do some DNS shenanigans on the client where you use a jumper server to jump to the server you actually wanna join though.

I also recommend something like floodgate for authentication so you don’t need to have the server in offline mode or have the player need both a java and a bedrock account

edit: I forgot to mention, keep in mind that this is still using JAVA edition as a backend. So when there is feature disparity between bedrock and Java, the java mechanic is what takes precedence. The biggest whiplash for bedrock vs java is usually the fact that java edition minecraft has the stamina system for attacking, so you can’t just button mash to attack or you waste durability and have lower attack damage.

Is the main issue that you are using test and extra indentation with fish? Like, does this help?

yes that is better, I do like the clearer differentiation on what is a command vs part of the flow control. I do find that using [] or [[]] is cleaner looking than using the standard test command, but the main point of it was showing the flow; functions having a beginning { and an ending }, conditionals clearly using if to mark the beginning, ; then to mark when the conditional portion of the flow ends and the processing portion begins, and the fi to indicate when the processing portion ended. Flow control statements like that. Could I be able to decipher it manually like I have to with python? yes, but it’s just something that as a personal preference I would prefer not to do if avoidable.

its easier to let me know that the previous line wasn’t done, and that I should be expecting the conditional to continue instead of start to work on the next line. The most noticeable would be with really long conditionals, I think its nice since bash and fish don’t use {} outside of functions to indicate open and close like other non-tab oriented languages. Moving longer lines to dedicated functions works well but doesn’t help when the entire conditional is related so it would just be in the main function block instead.

It’s a very subjective thing, definitely more of a minor thing since I already have to deal with it with tab oriented languages on the rare occasion I deal with them. My main issues with it were definitely was the lack of usage leading to fewer examples and documentation on how it worked, and then the piping issue was just the final nail in the coffin that made me drop it.

Maybe you are thinking about fish more as a programming language? Whereas I’m thinking about it more like a series of commands (I guess more like a “purer” scripting language of sorts)?

Yes, that is likely the differentiation. I understand that bash is more command based but, I do a lot of stuff in java, node and Rust, and those all have clear differentiation of start and end (although rust’s can be a pain at times)

I find that fish

function foo
    if test "$foo" = 1
      echo "found"
    else
      echo "not found"
    end
end

vs bash

function foo () {
  if [[ "$foo" == 1 ]]; then
    echo "found"
  else
    echo "not found"
  fi
}

is a downgrade in flow comprehensibility. Like I can see why it could be easier to read, but I prefer not having to analyze where statements, conditionals and functions begin and end. It’s very similar to how python works, and I disliked that in python. At the end of the day flow layout is subjective so you may or may not agree, but thats my mentality on it.

As for the piping example, I don’t have that snippet available anymore. I eventually remade the code from scratch and when I did I got rid of zenity as a dependancy which removed the need of having the pipe. It was a wget pipe into sed into zenity in order to use a progress bar for the download, and fish did not like that pipe at all, I’m not sure if it was because it was multiple pipes or if something else underlying was happening, but I could take that same pipe sequence and throw it into bash and it would function no issue, but with fish zenity wouldn’t give progress updates on it, so it was modifying the pipe somewhere.

Bias wise I wouldn’t say I was bias towards bash, I tried fish after recommendation from a friend because I hadn’t heard of it, and I had a bad experience. I moved to ZSH instead of going back to bash after all. I just found it easier to use over fish, and it was easier to research into issues when problems arose as it has a larger user-base and remained POSIX compatible (mostly). To me it made no sense to re-invent the wheel via fish. I’m sure fish had it’s advantages. I just didn’t see any during the week I was trialing it.