namark @namark@qoto.org
Joined Jan 2020
@Talloran @tuxcrafting except it wasn't exactly x86 that become popular, it was some proprietary software build for x86, at which point as a CPU manufacturer, even if going out of your way to provide an optimizing compiler for your shiny new architecture, you were on the whim of the software copyright holder to (allow you to) rebuild the software, because software was what sold hardware(still is). So, ironically, for hardware manufacturer to remain independent from the software monopolists, hardware designers had to stay backward compatible with that software, shamelessly pushing the rhetoric of it being some sort of a fundamental problem that they are so good at solving, even when GCC proved that we can do much better. That's how deeply proprietary software culture messed everything up, and it is a complete failure by any metric, other than extortion.
@shampoobottle @georgia@dickkickextremist.xyz qoto got it from fedibird, and it's no good for discovery, cause it suffers from activitypubitis - you only get the portion of the timeline that your instance already happens to know about. The only way to get full timeline is to request it directly from target instance, client side.
This post is brought to you by subway tooter master race.
namark
boosted
I decided to start publishing me playing some stuff on my peertube channel, as a way to motivate me to get better and get over my shyness...
I'm not very good, but whatever, you gotta start somewhere. Hopefully with time I'll look back and laugh at the goofy attempts =D
This is the first song. From now on I'll just boost my peertube status with every video
https://video.qoto.org/videos/watch/6b952c22-d141-495b-bd36-9c5a2d96d31f
Plastic
@drq I was trying to explain that the reasoning behind using plastic is increasing throughput. It's a choice between food in a plastic bag or no food, not food in a plastic bag or a paper bag.
Plastic
@drq It's lighter, more compact, more durable and easier to integrate in the production process, all of which increases overall throughput. Even if we were a perfect hive-mind that never produces more than necessary, we might still want to tool up with plastic, in case higher throughput becomes necessary at some point, like some kind of an emergency, we would perhaps just have a much better recycling plan/process. Advantage in present is always more important than problems of distant future, only an all knowing god can transcend this reality.
It seem like you'll need the holy grail:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWHN5WXMFHc
It's a solution to a more general problem by boiling it down to linear algebra, using Zhegalkin polynomials. The process itself is rather straight forward, with the added bonus that each step more or less fully represents the problem, there is very little reduction going on, so makes it easier to think about how it can be reversed. Not trivial though, in particular there is a combinatorial explosion going on (though it adheres to a certain pattern, so might only be "apparent explosion"), and of course there is the challenge of converting the polynomials to some interesting/natural prepositional logic statements, for which you'd probably have to go with some rigid structures and vary certain mostly irrelevant components (trivial example would be using the classic and/or/not operations and just swapping the variables). Unfortunately most of the work in this area that I'm aware of is aimed at finding minimal rather than interesting representations. Very hard to imagine how you would go from a set of polynomials to a high level concept like ordering of houses, but just another perspective, and if nothing else a simpler example to think on.
It does have a rather strange slogan, given that what one wants from a terminal 99% of the time is to do nothing, "sleep well and wake up quickly", be efficient, low impact, and don't hog resources, while GPU's are usually used for throughput optimization, that is doing as much as possible in a given timeframe (and not as little as possible - efficiently).
Something like "uses modern graphics API to integrate better with modern system", would be a more sound goal/interpretation. Otherwise you get the impression that it's yet another app that's going to be holding GPU resources hostage or clogging the pipeline for no reason.
@codesections @byllgrim@mastodon.xyz Trees and tag/filter/search/sort are not mutually exclusive, and can even complement each other. When something is a tree, you need to see it as a tree or be blind. There are even naturally occurring trees that are not anyone's design choice, like conversation trees. The author is simply annoyed that some apps don't implement tag/filter/search/sort, the implied dichotomy is just a bait to make the argument seem more important.
@amiloradovsky@functional.cafe
@aral
It does indeed feel like an invitation to a boring philosophy lesson, full of buzz, fads and lacking essence. You don't need a separate class/lesson to disseminate free culture, if you simply practice it yourself, serving as an example. Opportunities to prove your point or demonstrate the advantages will always come up. The anecdotes and stories, examples and experiments, gradual subtle nudges in the right direction without force feeding are much more effective in my opinion. Be genuine, respect your students, and bet on them discovering the path, that might even turn out better than yours.
To summarize all the ranting here, you need to keep track of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Morgan's_laws
@philipwhite @kensanata@octodon.social
@tA learn anything to learn how to learn, and then learn to sell yourself as a learner.
@kensanata@octodon.social
Yeah, this is what @tfb suggested above, and is a much more clean(straight forward) approach, consistent with the mapping behaviour of all other other operators, but at the same time not natural for an if statement, which is usually seen as a branch in "control flow", though I'm not sure how true that is in context of APL.
Also in a more general sense this only postpones the reduction issue, which in some contexts will come up either way, and if made implicit will face similar kind of problems (which, again, one can say indicates that reduction must never be implicit, but I happened to have killed that guard once).
Yes, I understood the element-wise action, that's what I assume in my examples for both equality and inequality. The problem that in one case conjunctive reduction and in other case disjunctive reduction is natural comes from exactly that behaviour.
To illustrate in a more general algebraic sense: when reduced in same way (in contexts where that happens implicitly, like the if statement) expressions "A=/=B" and "A=B" can both result in false (or true in case of disjunction), reading "A is neither equal nor not-equal to B" (or "both equal and not-equal). Usually this screams "stop right there criminal scum!", but I killed the guard and explored this further, in my case having the operators return different types (called conjunctive_vector for = and disjunctive_vector for =/=) that would reduce in different ways.
There are still other issues (probably a lot of), for example "not(a=b)" can bypass the operator, assuming element-wise logical not, and result in similar pathological behaviour. Here perhaps the logical not should also flip the resulting type from conjunctive to disjunctive and vice versa, but in my case I just went with simpler approach of two distinct operators, one reducing and one element-wise (! and ~, in my case), mostly using the reducing one in logical expressions, unless feeling creative.
Note that all-zero case also differs because of this: the conjunction needs to be performed with an initial false value, and the disjunction - with a true value (similar to what you would do when implement these reductions with a basic for loop, or recursion).
@philipwhite @kensanata@octodon.social
@philipwhite @kensanata@octodon.social @loke
From my personal experience with similar constructs and desiring natural implicit behavior I found that it can get rather confusing, that is in some expressions you expect the conjunction, and in others the disjunction.
Simplest example (pseudo code cause I don't know APL):
[1,2] = [1,3] - false with conjunction, true otherwise
[1,2] =/= [1,3] - true with disjunction, false otherwise
Not sure if an inequality check is a thing in KAP, but in general it can affect more complex logic expressions as well.
In other words for checking equality conjunction is natural, for inequality - disjunction.
One could also argue that there is so much more wrong here, and so many other intuitions break when doing this kind of implicit reduction that this small adjustment doesn't really matter, but that's just my 2 cents in trying to figure it out and make some use of it.
I guess it was a neural net, so they had no idea how it works. Lucky bastards brute forced their way into another universe. "Cosmic memory" was the training data set probably.
@sir
"C++ is a bad programming language" - everyone on c++ committee, while taring into each others throats to push their proposals
"Our language is the perfect language of god" - any other language designer
Personal share
@mgrondin helps to listen to people who went through it
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jRltbhRO-sY
especially someone as calm and collected as bigclive.
There is some sense of perseverance when it comes to taking care of your own, that a movie usually can't convey well.
re: hot take
Yeah, I had a really hard time reading those wiki links, couldn't understand every other word. Anyway what I'm saying, I'm saying about languages I know/speak. I would not claim anything about any language I do not know/speak, no matter how much linguistics I read.
My argument wasn't that, what is now adorably named PUI (pharase-based user interface), is aiming to be most like natural languages, it was instead, that it is based on natural language(some I guess) sentences/phrases, which are words separated with spaces. Which itself is mainly aimed to show that the question of spaces in names is not a "why not" question it is a "why" question. It is such on a practical level(compatibility, simplicity), and philosophical level, which I was forced to go into, since the argument against it was "it's just not right".
Apologies to anyone who I may have irritated.
re: hot take
@amiloradovsky@functional.cafe
Never realized that a word is a greeky idea.
I'm also confused as to why are you showing me a language "feature" that produces long uninterrupted words, while arguing for spaces in names. I tried to dig out an argument there but couldn't.
re: hot take
@amiloradovsky@functional.cafe
Well it seems more like a thing all languages do to various degrees from what I read, some just more than others, but I might be missing the point, I'm not a linguist, most of the terminology escapes me.
