It’s unfortunate that The Martian Revolution podcast isn’t better. It reads more like an Onion article than history or a story.
I do like it, don’t get me wrong, but it just feels like it lacks substance. I wish it were richer and more detailed. Instead of telling me 5 times that Werner is an idiot, give me one example.
And it’s shocking because he remains very neutral in other seasons.
I did not have a good day today.
I’m hard on myself.
Didn’t go for a run, didn’t go to church, broke my lisp interpreter (it no longer has lexical scoping) (it’s in git so I can rollback), spent the last 4 hours on the internet, room’s a mess, etc.
I made a post on here, or maybe even in the Twitter days, that I felt like the pieces of my life were drifting apart. (The visual imagery might not be apparent here—I pictured myself standing on an ice sheet with peices cracking off and drifting away under me.) And I worried at the time that I would be left with nothing, and I was afraid that I was being over dramatic. In retrospect, I don’t think I was exaggerating, some of the pieces of my life that I had 4 years ago have drifted away and haven’t come back. And that sucks. But I’m not left with nothing either. New things have come up, and some things haven’t left. There are parts of my life that I can only describe as barren. But there are other parts of my life that are strong pillars that I can stand on.
“Give me today what I need today” (Matt 6:11, paraphrased)
Good morning.
In a couple of decades the statically typed people are going to realize that not everyone is going to volentarily write
programs in statically typed languages so they’re going to try to get a law passed at the federal level making it illegal to sell software developed with dynamically typed programming languages. People just hate fun. They hate things that I enjoy. They hate freedom. For any person that enjoys doing something there’s someone else who thinks it is unsafe and should be illegal.
I have not eaten breakfast yet today.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again—knowledge is a post-scarcity resource and the fact that we use copyright to introduce artificial
scarcity is disgusting. ‘I have infinite copies and it costs me nothing to give one to you but I’m going to make you pay me because I need to make money.’ It’s true that you need to make money, we all need money to buy food to eat. However, that doesn’t justify all forms of making money.
My proposed copyright reform for the internet age (scaled back enough that I think it’s actually theoretically feasible): things published first digitally have a different copyright system from things published on paper. Paper books (including ebooks of paper books) stay the same. Digitally published material 1) has a 30 year copyright term instead of 95 years 2) can be copied non-commercially for free. This is already effectively how the internet works.
You have React components that are pure on their inputs that describe the UI. Normally React state is used to store anything that can cause a re-render; in LSFA React state would only be used to store information that *only* effects UI (for example, screen width). Basically, very very little.
Pages would be divided into Islands (borrowing the term from Fresh without having ever used Fresh). Each Island would have state. The rule of thumb would be that an island does not care about how it is rendered. Islands exist on both the frontend and backend (unlike React components which are frontend only). Islands store all of the state that is needed to render them (field data, etc). When updating an Island's state from the frontend, the Island is re-rendered locally and then the update is sent to backend where the Island state is updated in the database (a noSQL key->document store). On the backend, the Island could implement additional verification checks (e.g. username already taken), it could define uniqueness keys (e.g. two different users need different Islands for the login page, but they want a document they're collaborating on to be backed by the same Island instance), and it could even define a lifetime (e.g. 30 days or persistent) if you were worried about clogging the database with half-filled-in login forms.
I think this works well for rendering. The limitation of clustering state is how many developers (including myself) use React anyways. Database persistence of this state offers so many advantages (see the other LSFA posts, but in short: ability for the user to reload without losing work, client-side validation of errors without needing dedicated async JS fetch code, the content needed to load the page available at page load).
The issue is you've fragmented the backend data. Either you use the LSFA database as your only database and write backend code that people aren't used to writing to populate a number of different sources of truth for different pages, or you use the LSFA database, almost as a cache, in addition to your primary authoritative database. The second sounds viable to me. It also kind of sounds nightmarish, don't get me wrong, but if the LSFA framework was built for it and handled that database automatically, it wouldn't be worse than React + a traditional database.
I think what you need is pointers. If the LFSA database was able to store "pointers" to other documents in the form of abbreviated queries, well your complexity would explode and it would be hidden so it would be a nightmare, but it would let me do what I want to do. I think it would work. I just need a database.
Earlier versions of LSFA considered including SSR and/or object diffing as a core feature—this version includes neither (although it could easily be extended with either).
MIN update: forgetting that the internet exists is freeing but remembering that it exists and self-excluding sucks.
Unfortunately I think about the internet a lot and it’s difficult to forget about.
I said the other day, a some of who I am is an internet user—Matthias minus the internet is less Matthias.
The thing that Ancillary Justice did, that so few stories do, is that it doesn’t tell the reader everything that the main character knows.
A lot of books infodump the entirety of the main character’s backstory and knowledge (and good books—The Hobbit does it, Harry Potter does it, etc). This formula works, because as the conflict and the plot develop, the character’s understanding and your understanding move at the same time, all 4 in lock-step. (e.g. you see someone tell that main character that there’s going to be a murder, and conflict and the plot of the book become about stopping the murder.)
But it becomes formulaic. It limits your ability to introduce new information throughout the book, because it’s difficult to introduce new plot 3/4 of the way through the book.
There are of course ways to separate them, but they’re very difficult to do. Maybe Ancillary Justice is an exception, but I conjecture that withholding information about the main character until just before it’s relevant (just before, not when it’s relevant, if you introduce it when it’s relevant you’re back to trying to do everything at once again), is one of the easiest ways to do this. You don’t need to understand the conflict or the main character in their entirety in order to start reading the book.
Anyways, finished Elantris; very hard to rate after reading Ancillary Justice. Sanderson throws new stuff at you and the plot and the characters and the conflict 95% of the way through the book. Literally 20 pages left. 4 stars, ultimately the characters save it.
I’m really good at not doing things. I can avoid (almost) any temptation or deprive myself of a lot of pleasures.
Right now I’m avoiding chocolate, nuts, sex, drugs, cursing, and the Internet. And of course, human interaction.
If life were about not doing bad things I would be doing so well. But it’s not.
I've commented on this before, but there's I think an unfair bias against FPGA-targeted development from the perspective of the software engineer. Programmers will re-write their code in Rust for 2x performance gains but won't re-write it in Verilog for 10x performance gains. What gives?
Call it cat-run
Just want to get a quick thought in about Ancillary Justice, which I finished today. It’s one of the only books I’ve ever read that had me
addicted, can’t put it down, not because of threats or anxiety or cliffhangers or the usual tools that authors use, but because of my own curiosity. Most books alternate advancing the plot and advancing your understanding of the world, but somehow Ancillary Justice does both at the same time (which is insane because they’re not the same). The exposition of the book, introducing the characters and the threat, ends 2/3 of the way through the book, but the plot started on the first page. Somehow you’re given just enough information to appreciate what’s going on right now while still having questions about what’s going to happen.
The reason comptime is bad for safety checks is that function calls don’t propagate the comptime-known-ness value of their parameters.
So if you have a safety check that you want to run in a function five levels deep, even if the value is comptime known at the top level, you have to make all of the intervening levels either 1) only accept comptime arguments or 2) make them all inline. Both of these are strongly discouraged by the Zig core team. The former because it’s contrary to one of the goals of Zig, that you can write code that runs at comptime or runtime. The second is discouraged because marking functions inline hurts the compilers ability to optimize them. (Inline functions are inlined before optimizations are performed, which means that optimizing the parent function is harder because there’s a larger search space.)
You might think this is a flaw in Zig and there should be a way for the compiler to optionally propagate comptime known parameters without requiring them to be comptime, it’s very difficult to define semantics for how this would work in practice (are you generating two copies of the function or one?)
If you want safety checks, you’d be much better off performing them at runtime in debug mode.
I think I agree with the TigerBeetle and Zig philosophy that you can't "make it work, then make it fast."
Performance and speed are a function of your platform, your algorithms, and your data-structures. Those aren't things that you can go back and change easily if you do a performance analysis and decide that they're slow.
Of course, part of the issue that a lot of early-stage projects run into is that you can't choose good algorithms or data structures if you don't know what you're going to be doing. I think this is what Dijkstra meant when talking about "premature optimization." I think "premature optimization" is optimization done before knowing what your algorithm is going to be, not poor choice of algorithm.
There was a hot-take HN comment that I'll never forget about how CS requires you to be very smart but isn't actually that hard (e.g. it's
menial labor that requires the ability to comprehend abstract and complex data), and that half of the field is occupied with overcomplicating things in order to make our jobs more interesting.
Anyways, I'm going to do a like 10-commit interactive rebase to reapply my changes with the upstream build system and not the build system refactor that I have locally.
The whole 'AI talks its way out of the box' is funny because it can be used to construct a Pascal's Wager kind of argument wherein you avoid
talking not just to the superintelligent AI but also refuse to talk to anyone else who might have talked to the AI. Surely it can tell them to tell you to do something.
(The "Pascal's-wager-i-ness" of this is unclear.)
It’s interesting in retrospect how much vision Tim Cook had.
2011: Tim Cook takes over as CEO of Apple
2012: Apple introduces EarPods
2013: Apple launches iTunes Radio
2014: Apple buys Beats
2015: Apple launches Apple Music
2016: Apple launches AirPods
2016: Apple removes the headphone jack
2012 I was buying songs on iTunes; 2017 I was listening to Apple Music on AirPods. And suddenly a decision like buying Beats (which might have been a good investment on its own merit) becomes hugely magnified into a defining feature of how we interact with the company, in just 5 years.
It’s impossible to know how much of this is Cook. But I don’t think it’s a coincidence that in 2012 Jony Ive happens to sit down and design a pair of headphones and then in 2014 Apple happens to buy a wireless headphone company and then in 2016 Apple happens to remove the headphone jack and also happens to release their own wireless headphone. I think in 2012 someone said “people need to wear Apple headphones” and I think that person was Tim Cook.
Cook would say music is in Apple’s DNA, and it is (the iPhone has always been an iPod), but that doesn’t make the 2012-2019 timeline obvious.
HN criticizes the new iMac:
* it “only” goes up to 32gb of RAM
* the Magic Mouse charges on the bottom
* it’s an all in one instead of being
a separate tower and monitor.
* RAM upgrades are expensive
* you can’t take the computer apart and upgrade it
* it’s only 24” and not 27”
* the thunderbolt ports “point out the back”—this commenter wants them on bottom I guess
* it still has a “chin”
* it’s bad for gaming
These are all the same points as 15 years ago. We have to chill out at some point right? Some people want their computers to come with a screen.
You look at it and it looks kind of miserable, but the things that make it look miserable actually make it super fun and allow you to do things you couldn't do normally and grant the whole experience a sort of simple purity.
*Throne of Jade* had an over abundance of restful moments. This hurt the plot firstly because the plot wasn’t emphasized, but also because
the true goals of the characters, as revealed through these moments, were completely tangential to the plot. (Leading me to award it a meager 2 stars, my worst rating in recent memory.)
This is why the restful moments in *The Hobbit* work so well—they show you what Bilbo wants, food and peace, and they make the book’s conflicts more pronounced.
An interesting relationship between aspects of stories:
Giving characters space outside of the plot (what I call “restful moments”—times where the characters are not under threat and do not have cause for urgency) allows them to show the things that they really care about. In turn, if these things are threatened by the conflict of the story, then the plot is more engaging.
Welcome back to, Ruby programmers write bad regular expressions.
Edit: This was slander, the Regex is fine. It's so much worse.
Apple has a feature called LiveText that lets you copy text out of an image. If you had asked me yesterday, I would have said it was magic. I'm never using it again.
Cyrillic Capital Letter Em (U+041C)
That's why the Regex didn't match.
I need to pick what app to write MGTZFPWUTKZATHTMW in. I guess just the notes app.
Also I'm really curious how people shorten the name. I'm committed to the bit at this point. I'll shorten it to MGTZFPWUTKZATHTMW but no further. But that acronym is so obnoxiously long.
HN comment a little while about about how 'bad' books on the top of the charts are—here I found it so I don't have to paraphrase:
> Most books published today have the affect of a book, but the author doesn't really have anything to say. Publishing a book is not about communicating ideas, but a means to something else.
The commenter didn't describe what they thought that books were a means to—they were arguing that books could be replaced with AI and no one would care.
But for me, one of the things that a book does is establish connection with other people—both the fictional characters and the author. You can criticize me for reading books that don't stand alone but the thing that they're leaning on is the fact that a real human being wrote them.
I read *Without Bloodshed* in part because I love reading but in part because someone took the time to write it and then they took the time to put it up on a website for me to read. I marvel at the insanity of the moving city in *Calamity* because its insane but also because I know a sane human mind came up with it. The magic of exploring a fantasy world in a book is that a human mind invented it.
Look, think of it this way. Imagine you had the technology of writing, the technology of stories, the technology of LLMs—but imagine you were the only person on the planet. Congrats. You can generate all the words in the world but they mean nothing.
I love lifesteal because they try to be so mean. They're trying to appear more cutthroat in the videos than they actually are.
And it's honestly not good ethically that some of the videos have a moral of "you should be mean."
But at the same time they're actually all friends and they're not playing optimally and they're throwing for content.
A great example of me programming out of order, I just wrote all the method for this class and now I'm going to write the class definition
My file right now looks like
```
before_action :example
def create
# actual code here
end
private
def example
# actual code here
end
```
and now I need to write the `class ExampleController < ...` bit at the top of the file.
One of the things that I love about reading is stumbling into words or constructs that I understand but never would have used.
"Me? I just dabble with documenting an unimplemented '50% more bits per byte than the competition' 12-bit fantasy console of my own invention - replete with inventions such as 'UTF-12'"
I never would have used the word "replete" there. I don't think I've ever used the word "replete" in my life. It's like hitting a chocolate chip in a muffin—it take an ordinary sentence and makes it much sweeter.
And it's next to impossible to achieve this effect (for yourself) when writing something because the words that you use are the same as the words that you would use. If I want to invoke this feeling for other people, I just need to write confidently and trust that the words that I'm choosing to use are evocative for others.
The justification for why the "simpler" default is wrong in the Pizza example is that it leaks data that doesn't need to exist at that level
The pizza class doesn't *need to know* what the default is. The default is a property of the menu. Even if you wanted to have a default dough and then in 2 years you decided to change what the default dough is, that information isn't a part of what defines a Pizza, so it shouldn't be a part of Pizza class. The Pizza class shouldn't care what your restaurant's default dough is.
This applies to default values in the general case, to some extent—if the calling component is responsible for setting the value, the calling component should be responsible for defining the default value.
One of the other pre-Stop-Worrying realizations was that I can’t do it. Which is interesting because I’ve always been aware that I can’t be
perfect, but I guess I thought I could be close enough to perfect that people would treat me like I’m perfect.
Part of what makes the social anxiety difficult is that there’s a part of my pride that thinks I could still be “perfect.” Like that I could be the most handsome guy at church. (Which again is interesting because many people with social anxiety describe themselves as feeling ugly. But it obviously has exactly the same effect.)
But then this is also at odds with my understanding of myself as an underdog.
I think there are two things that make The Count hard to read.
First, it's paced like a serialized TV show, not a movie. It's accused of being long and spending time on things that don't advance the plot, but no one complains about *Friends* being too long because they understand that the medium isn't hurried.
Second, it's written in a super distant third person. You see The Count talk to people, but you don't see him do a lot and you don't often know what he's thinking.
=> https://thoughts.learnerpages.com/?show=05c67b57-5f77-47a6-b214-359c2f3edf70
I don't have a clear vision of the design goals of SMASH. On one hand, I want it to be inviting, but I also want it to be sharp.
Jony Ive is a design genius. How do you make something like the iPhone 4 that looks modern and clean while also looking friendly and usable. Shouldn't they contradict each other.
The Linux frame buffer console is beautiful in countless subtle subjective ways, but its not friendly. Do I even want SMASH to be friendly? Apple did it with the original Macintosh; Mozilla did it with Firefox. Not sharp, dull, but clean and stiff and fast.
I haven't touched SMASH recently or given an update. The thing I'm stuck on is that I want SMASH to feel like a native macOS GUI app
(while also feeling like a terminal). But a couple years ago Apple changed the native caret style on macOS to match iOS. It's thick, it's rounded, it's colorful, it fades in and out. And I don't like it. I don't notice it in Apple apps, and most third party apps that I use don't use the native caret. But I notice it in SMASH and it doesn't feel like it fits.
So I need to decide I'm going to draw a custom caret (possible, annoying to get the blinking right) or I'm going to change the rest of the app to fit with the caret better.
Beyond Meat / Impossible Foods got too greedy. By doing partnerships with fast food and getting into grocery stores with cheaper-than-beef
prices they established synthetic meat as commonplace: either a discount option or an ethical optional. But the people buying beef today don't care about either of those things so there's no reason to give synthetic beef a second look.
If you charged 20% more or the same as beef and advertised it as tasting better, well I'd try it out. You establish it as a premium thing, get it into steakhouses rather than fast food chains. Then you drop the price.
Easy to say in retrospect, hard to do.
I have a rule of thumb: don't try to make something that is better and cheaper. That doesn't make sense. You'll either fail, or even if you succeed, people won't believe you. Trying to compete on price and quality at the same time is a red flag that you're trying to do the exact same thing as someone else, which isn't a good business strategy. Make something that is cheaper and worse, for people who care about price, or make something better and more expensive for people who care about quality.
It would be easy for me to remember fall 2020-spring 2021 as a happy time in my life because I have a number of key happy moments from that
time—unicycling, hanging out with my roommates, walking to the bookstore. But in general it wasn't a time that I was very happy. I wasn't going to church, I wasn't following any sort of schedule, I wasn't getting stuff done, so I was stressed and bored simultaneously. My head was full of bees. I wish I had stronger memories of the time (I don't because again I wasn't doing much), but I do have the About page, which I wrote during that time, and I haven't really been in that mindset since then.
Recently I've just been bored. There are some awful activities like being on Reddit or Youtube or Twitch which don't take energy but also don't let you rest, and that's how I felt for much of 2020-2021, and that's how I've felt for much of 2024. The difference is now I'm getting done the stuff that I need to get done, so there's less background stress in some areas, but there's as much background stress in other areas.
I'm a hoarder, sometimes, out of a misguided approach to efficiency. But hoarding is surprisingly inefficient.
Feinberg's all-items run is proof of this. The goal is to get every single item in the game as quickly as possible, and Feinberg approaches it by being extremely, remarkably, quick to throw away items. He's very quick to get items and very quick to throw them away, and his inventory is spotless for most of the 12 hours. An inspiration for me, IRL.
I had a thought recently about people sleeping in the same bed. There's a kind of intimacy that comes with trusting someone to touch you.
But I viewed that intimacy as kind of conditional. I thought that person A trusted person B to choose correctly to touch them in the right ways at the right time. But if person B is asleep then they're not thinking about how they're touching person A. The sleeping person B is going to roll over on top of person A and put their hand in person A's eyes.
I've heard "be okay with mistakes" but I've also heard "learn from mistakes." And in my mind mistakes are inevitable but they're something to always be avoided if possible and learned from—I don't want to accept mistakes. (Maybe mistake isn't the right word here, "imperfection" "flaw" etc.)
But two people sleeping in the same bed share a sort of intimacy that transcends accepting the conscious person. And accepting the conscious person might be built on trust or shared experiences or values or be conditional in some way. But accepting the unconscious person can't be.
I should probably approach my waking relationships with at least being open to accepting or trusting people unconditionally (something that I've never really done).
I actually am glad that I've made so much progress. I can recognize the feeling that is fear of thinking about the thing.
It's very different from the fear of the thing. It's when the "the thing" feels like a fuzzy black blob in the upper right part of my skull and I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT IT IS. It's like when you're in a dream and you can't remember how you got there.
Slack's doing a survey on AI use and they're like 'Have you used ChatGPT for technical help (e.g. writing code)'. And I feel like have to
say yes because sometimes I'll ask ChatGPT basic questions about syntax or APIs I'm not familiar with. I use it for grounding when I don't have something to do a web search.
=> https://chatgpt.com/share/66fc2bfc-7d28-8000-bce2-e2b3be620a32 An example
But Slack's going to be like '73% of developers report using ChatGPT to write code'.
ChatGPT is a first-line tool. I.e. first you ask ChatGPT, and if that fails, then you Google and use existing libraries, and if that fails, then you write the code yourself. ChatGPT makes the top of the funnel wider, not the bottom of the funnel narrower.
The problem with MGTZFPWUTKZATHTMW is that all good programming manuals include pictures, and I am not an artist.
Like Learn You a Haskell for Great Good doesn’t have beautiful pictures, but it has good pictures.
The issue is that part of what I’m trying to do is subvert the medium with the content. Which of course I’m not doing a good job at, but regardless. Fountain pen on a napkin could be a sufficiently interesting medium. Or I do boring technical diagrams and label them in an interesting way. That might be the move actually.
I just feel so much imposter syndrome because other people are insane.
How can I consider myself a writer when the instruction manual for "Veney" is five times longer (23,000 words) than the longest thing I've ever written (4,000 words).
The previous Thought may lead to the counter-intuitive case for minimalism.
A HN user mocked solderpunk for using markdown-style backticks to denote code in a Gemini document. But there’s no contradiction there. For the human, markdown is better. More features are better. But if you pursue that mantra to its conclusion you end up with slow, buggy software that gives you exactly what you said you wanted. Chess is solved for black. 16 quintillion moves.
In a way, computers are the ultimate test of self-restraint, because they’ll give you what you ask for with a limit yet-undiscovered by humans. (Solving chess seems like a fundamental limit right now, which is what makes having a computer solve it such a good prompt.)
“They Asked the Machine That’s Killing the World About Chess, and It Said Black Has a Forced Win in 10,084,718,004,934,623”
It’s important to understand that computers’ alienness comes from inside the heads of their human creators.
Computers are a perfectly logical mirror. We look into them and see a horribly disfigured and ugly monster but what the computer shows us is a version of what lives inside of us.
Humans invented the game and humans built the computer and humans asked the question. The answer may look alien but is it not very human?
Edit (7:07pm):
=> https://web.archive.org/web/20240919023643/https://cohost.org/swordbroken/post/6467503-the-solved-game "The Solved Game" - Cohost - Archive.org
👐 is the emoji-logo of my late Blaseball team, the Breckenridge Jazz Hands. It means "jazz hands," but as fans of the team, we would use it
to represent a lot more. I continue to use it aggressively both to remember Blaseball and because it means to me an emotion which isn't captured by a smile or a heart. 👐 is positive but it's deeper than a smile or a thumbs up. When the Jazz Hands won we would use 👐 to celebrate, but when we lost we would say "That's Jazz baby" and react with 👐. 👐 means *smile and snaps and finger guns* even if you're not actually feeling it. The Jazz Hand's tarot card was XVI The Tower, which was normally applied to the team as pride before a fall, and sometimes I use 👐 for that as well. 👐 represents hope even in the face of overwhelming odds. It represents a solo improv in the spirt of Jazz. It represents smiling even though we're not perfect. Jazz hands baby 👐
My hot take is that `comptime` is bait. It gets you interested in the language but it's very rarely the right choice.
People are excited about using Comptime for four things that it shouldn't actually be used for:
1. Macros. comptime isn't a macro system. It can't be used to analyze or transform the code AST.
2. I forgot what two was. Maybe forcing optimizations?
3. Compilation customization. Not everything at compile time happens at comptime. Comptime is one step of the complication process and it has no ability to change the behavior of compilation or linking.
4. Creating their own type system and their own type system rules.
Edit (Nov 9): 5. Establishing safety checks to prevent bugs.
Comptime can be used for three things:
1. Generating or initializing static data.
2. Conditional compilation—removing sections of code on unsupported platforms (edit: or based on build flags or optimization mode)
3. Types as values—generics, dynamically choosing types, inspecting type information, etc. Edit (Nov 9th): in particular: generics/anytype, constructing types from data (analogous to 1.), and choosing types based on platform (analogous to 2.).
(It's easy to have that view dashed by the fact that there is such a thing as poetry that is distinct from code, but it's important to hold on to the fact that they have many of the same goals.)
It's important to remember that I cannot do it alone.
"Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants."
"Whoever has ears to hear let them hear."
"The seed falling among the thorns refers to someone who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, making it unfruitful"
In the early days of the internet you didn't connect to the internet to see the same stuff you would see by looking out the window.
People talk about how internet culture has changed, but some of the things that they point out have also changed in the real world, so I don't think that's why the internet feels different. For example, you could say the internet has become more commercialized or more censored, but there are still many spaces on the internet that are not marketable and uncensored. I think what's changed is that those spaces mimic the spaces that exist in the real world. There are still people on the internet talking about media piracy, but those people are also talking about media piracy in the real world. And the people who are using "unalive" on the internet are also using "unalive" in the real world. Pre 2010, the internet felt like a different world that didn't effect the real world. And so people judged it by a different standard than the real world. And I'm not nostalgic for the standard of the 2010 internet, but I am nostalgic for having a different standard for judging things on the internet.
I'm so ready for Feinberg's team to win another MCC. They're so OP. Analysis:
* Feinberg is on the team
No but on a more serious note; Tango did so poorly in KO that I just know it was nerves and not a skill issue. Like at one point in bingo, Tango was like 'how do I craft' and I know for a fact that this guy knows how to craft. So if he just isn't panicking, and can play at the level that Chilled was playing at in KO, then he won't be a liability.
Pearl, our Decked Out queen, triple-digit frogger, winner of Cub's Labyrinth, has MCC experience. She's obviously not the best in the event, but again, she's going to help.
I haven't watched Scar in MCC in years, but I've heard he's gotten better.
And Feinberg is a great team leader. So if anyone can make the team chemistry work it's him.
(On that note, I was shocked at how bad the team communication and chemistry was on the TIES team—they were all friends and they liked each other and trusted each other but their communication during the games was lacking a little bit compared to what I expected—hopefully that was also attributable to nerves and it being a new experience.)
I don't think you could make matrix / element worse if you tried. There's like the IRC-level of user-hostile because it wasn't designed to
be user friendly. Then there's user-hostile because your engineering/product team sucks. I used to think Element was in the former category, and making distributed software was hard. And I'm sure it is hard. But there's also a level of incompetence going on here.
I was asked to sign out of Element X on my phone so that I could sign back in using a new version of the protocol. I can't log back in.
Okay sic I actually was logged in. I force-quit the app and when I re-opened I was logged in. The authentication flow just ends without opening the app. Like it says "you're now logged in" but there were no buttons except a Back button in the upper left. I'm not blind. I am good at using software. I looked and the only button was a back button. So I clicked on it but that took be back to the log in screen leading me to assume I wasn't logged in but then logging in failed because, presumably because I was logged in.
IRC is at least is run by volunteers. Element isn't. I expect better.
The other thing that was really weird about the Vision Pro was that the windows all felt overwhelmingly close to me. Like having a 55" TV
3 feet from your face. You could make them smaller or push them back, but you lose image clarity.
The other thing that was remarkable was good the pass-through was. I could notice blurriness on text in the applications I was using, because they were big and close, but I didn't notice any blurriness in the background.
Ultimately I don't think Apple Vision Pro will really go anywhere because even though it unlocks any number of amazing interaction paradigms, the interfaces people actually want are 8.5x11 pieces of paper. I don't want my applications to be 55".
They've broken me. The Zig programmers have won. I'm hysterical. I meant to go to bed an hour ago.
Just make the functions inline, that will really improve your performance in debug mode. Have you considered `@branchWeight`? With less weighting on the uncommon case of lowercasing letters (most characters will pass through `toLower` unchanged), you may be able to get even better performance. What about inline assembly? Honestly you should just use inline assembly in order to ensure that all optimizations are performed even in debug mode. It's not like the optimal code to lowercase ASCII letters is going to change.
Its guaranteed that it doesn't overflow, unless there's a bug. So I agree that most of the time you don't need to worry about integer overflow but it would be nice if there was a mode that you could put the program in in order to indicate that you were attempting to ensure that the program didn't have any bugs, where the compiler could insert runtime safety checks. Call it like debug mode or something.
You clearly don't want runtime safety because you generated code in the mode that gives you runtime safety checks and then complained that there were runtime safety checks.
Congrats on your one instruction saved. I hope no one ever has to read the source code of these functions again.
Zig programmers explaining how they can get the compiler to generate better code
(in Debug mode (by omitting the debug mode safety checks that are a feature of the language (without using the `@setRuntimeSafety` builtin that is provided to allow you to opt out of runtime safety))).
The problem with Git is not that it's too hard to use, but that it's too easy.
Git only has a couple of simple underlying raw operations,
like creating a commit, for example. But `git commit` doesn't perform just that simple operation. It also updates the HEAD.
`git merge` also performs that simple operation of creating a commit. It also updates the HEAD, and I presume it also has some sort of simple operation for doing the actual merge.
`git stash` also performs this simple operation of creating a commit, but it doesn't update the HEAD.
So to a Git beginner, it's not at all obvious that `git merge` and `git stash` have any relationship, they look like completely orthogonal concepts, and so both of them seem more complicated than they actually are. But the advanced Git user (me) can `git switch --detach stash@{1}` because they understand what the simple operations are behind the curtain.
My problem is that I'm trying to meet God's standard and the world's standard. Ever since I was young, that's been the vision.
I wanted perfect grades without cheating. I wanted to be a Christian Steve Jobs. But it's just not possible, not because they're incompatible, but because the world's standard is nonsensical, self-contradictory, unhealthy garbage.
That's why I look like a good Christian in individual categories, but I don't look that much like a Christian taking my life as a whole—I have all the pieces there but I also have some other things that aren't supposed to be there.
The issue is that they're so closely intertwined in my head that I don't know how to separate them.
I'm now a `*local T` hater (even though I was a supporter of the proposal as it was being brainstormed this morning).
My reasoning is that
it doesn't effect codegen. Unlike almost every other Zig feature, it is exclusively a programmer-aid. And when you're looking at static analysis tools to aid the programmer, all of them are imperfect and all of them are complicated. So *local probably isn't different.
This is in stark contrast to *const and *volatile, both of which effect code-gen (I believe *const can be used for optimizations similar to const).
To the complicated point: knowing when to create it is easy and knowing that you can't return it from functions is easy, and realizing the potential of those rules is genius. The issue is assignment. In an expression like `x = &y` where y is a local and &y is a *local, determining whether this is allowed is non-trivial. You can't solve it perfectly without a borrow checker (equivalent to determining if the lifetime of x outlives the lifetime of y). But you can't solve it simply without rejecting any assignment to an x outside of the current scope.
And maybe that would be fine. I guess it would be fine. Still, good to break down; and does make it a little messier than it originally looks.
"I don't exist in physical spaces most of the time."
-Podcast Hank Green
I love Podcast Hank Green. I am watching every podcast from Hank's LA podcast tour. And there's a lot of overlap but it's worth it. He's so silly because he's trying to be an entertaining and interesting guest, and he's also so busy and so jetlagged or whatever.
One of the things lacking in Sabriel is the choice of heroism. One of the reasons I dislike books where the protagonist is under constant
pressure is that they are never given the choice of whether they want to be a hero. That’s one of the things that I love about the Hobbit and Five Kingdoms and to an extent Harry Potter and other works of fantasy that I enjoy. Sabriel has the choice to rescue her father and save the world from death, or the choice not to, which isn’t much of a choice at all. Because she’s alone she never has the temptation to say “you take it from here, I’m going home.” And so I don’t have a good idea of how she would react to that. I know that she will do her duty, because she does, but I don’t know how she feels about it.
I’m reading Sabriel. It’s absolutely crazy to see its influence on fantasy.
Lockwood and Co
Harry Potter
The technical interview series
The Rythmist
And maybe it’s coincidence and established tropes but it’s earlier and rawer than a lot of similar books with similar motifs.