robryk @robryk@qoto.org

@timorl I think that was the case only until https://www.bj.admin.ch/bj/de/home/gesellschaft/zivilstand/infostar/infostar-ng.html

@filippo @whitequark @glyph

value mismatch != wrong; if you equate the two you will lose the people who care about the distinction (either due to their approach to communication, or because e.g. they believe communities that claim that other values are wrong by fiat are likely to be/become hostile).

For banning for value mismatch not to seem arbitrary the values have to be clearly visible to everyone (incl. bystanders), too. whitequark's codes of conduct are IMO an example of being very clear on them.

@CppGuy @0xabad1dea

Unless the GC somehow takes into account memory refresh cycle? (Though I'd expect that to be unlikely.)

@0xabad1dea if I was the only person in the audience and could ask questions I would love this presentation. Alas, then it wouldn't have to be a presentation.

@badastro

This is very close to a plot point of Perihelion Summer.

@_thegeoff So you'd want a laptop, minus the human interfaces (in both directions), but still with a battery? If you didn't want the battery, then lots of single board computers with an enclosure around them would match these requirements, and some of them might even match all the unstated requirements (perf, amount of storage, kinds of network interfaces available, ...). It's obviously a much less well supported setup than a laptop, though.

If you mean laptop _with_ a screen, but without input devices, then you might find form factor of Novena (the ~laptop) interesting.

@mcc

> my rule is only "at most one writer"

So, any number of readers *and* at most one writer?

I don't quite see how this restriction helps with memory management (or rather, helps with statically ensuring that memory management is correct) over allowing multiple writers but requiring lifetimes of all references to ~match.

@mcc

Nit: that's not exactly correct. You can have multiple mutrefs, but all but one have to be "borrowed from".

Do I UC that you'd want to not have readonly references at all?

I think it'd be possible, but exceedingly annoying: see what kinds of variants methods that e.g. split slices in Rust need (so that you can e.g. split a mutref to a slice into two mutrefs to parts of that slice _as long as they don't overlap_). You'd need to go through those hoops for nonmutable references too (so, you would not be able to multiply x with x without either making a copy of x or having a specialized squaring function). Also, closures would be barely practical: whatever they capture couldn't be touched until the closure goes out of scope.

@_thegeoff

It might be interesting to show them that sound bends when speed of sound changes in space, and tell them about the rescue bombs that were once placed on aircraft (they'd explode at some depth if the aircraft sunk, and listening stations around the ocean would triangulate the location of the accident).

@whitequark Doesn't the same apply to the signal you're providing via the external probe?

@whitequark Potentially naive question: why not the other way round (have the IC configure everything as outputs, toggle them at seminrandom, and observe what the probe sees)? Is that not in general possible via JTAG?

@b0rk Unless you could also inherit fds and specify /dev/fd/N there, this would make it harder to avoid race conditions and require replacement of many pipes with named fifos.

@mark ah; nothing around probability distributions talks about finite time. They're at the same abstraction level as (not necessarily comoutable) functions.

@mark it's well formed insofar we've built an abstraction (probability distributions) and declared that this is what picking a random number means.

I think you can make some statements about computability of functions that map between probability distributions, but I don't see how to get around defining some way of picking things axiomatically.

@mark I don't understand what mathematical object you want to prove the existence of.

@mark what do you mean by "choose"? Defining a probability distribution over reals where each interval has nonzero probability doesn't require AoC.

@munin can you give some pointers? A very quick search yielded only articles about grok's behaviour, and I have failed to find anything about them blaming an intern.