Re: [meta] Harry Potter, Physics, Tools, Perception, etc. (was Re: Text based synchronous communication tool for Linux?)

In article <vjarv0$17q4j$1@dont-email.me>,
Janis Papanagnou  <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 10.12.2024 23:57, James Kuyper wrote:

On 12/9/24 10:21, Janis Papanagnou wrote:

On 09.12.2024 10:11, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:

On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 09:37:54 +0100

...

WRT IRC you may have missed the requirements in my OP; one was:
* instantly/synchronously exchanging any typed characters

>
I suggest you consult harry potter for that then.

>
(I suppose here you just want play the troll.) But how does that
comment address in any way my question? - I don't know anything
about "Harry Potter", BTW; if you want to discuss that better
open an own post in an appropriate newsgroup.

 
Key feature of "Harry Potter" - he lives in a world where magic is real.

>
Thanks. - So much I knew of those books/films. :-)
It appears to be impossible to evade hearing of Harry Potter. ;-)
(I've even seen some, to be honest, but not sure I saw any film
completely. I like fantasy, but not this sort of fairy tales;
so it's useless to discuss that specific genre-variant with me.)
>
It was merely meant as a hint to the poster to focus on the topic
if there's any intention to seriously contribute (which his post,
in content and tone, obviously anyway didn't intend).
>

This is Muttley's way of telling you that he thinks that your
specification can only be achieved by using magic, that it's
incompatible with the real world.
Taken literally, "instantly" is indeed impossible, but I doubt that you
intended it literally.

>
Given that in Relativity Theory instant transmission is impossible -
light (electromagnetic waves) and information can travel only with
light speed! - and that quantum entanglement in Quantum Theory is
unlikely to have been in my mind when talking about our profane IT
tools theme, it should indeed have been obvious - but probably not
to Muttley - that it's of course not meant literally. - It was the
colloquial "instantly" used in a comparison to the other ways tools
typically communicate.
>
What was meant, if not obvious, I think could be easily derived
from my original post already, where I mentioned three prevalent
types of typical systems; write a complete message and <send> it
(to be seen at the addressee), write a line and <send> it, and -
what I meant - while typing the peer could see what you type (and
without an explicit <send>). - I'm sure most people understood it,
given their responses. - And tools with such characteristic have
also already been proposed.

Taking what you wrote literally is an obtuse reading
of the original requirements, indeed.  It's rather
obvious that the requirement was character-at-a-time
transmission, as opposed to batching into larger
messages (lines or otherwise).

Only Muttley seems to didn't get it, especially given that he
suggested things like IRC (that were clearly ruled out in my OP),
and that he's obviously never seen tools like the ones mentioned
(by me and others here); 'phone' and the various 'talk' variants.
>
(I postpone or ignore posts from people that behave like him. My
longish post might help him to understand, or maybe not - I don't
care much.)

Muttley's the guy who doesn't know what a compiler is,
right?

- Dan C.