Spartaco Pécora {🇻🇪 ⋂ 🇮🇹} @zpartacoos@qoto.org

Holy shit. I'm filling out my work's HR training for 2021 (pandemic edition) and I figured out a formula to get all the quiz questions correct: pick whichever answer I think is wrong.

The type of shit they're asking:

1.) During a video call with Will you see that in his background, there are religious, political or otherwise offensive books.
Q: is Will in violation of company policy?
Yes/No

(Hint: HR says it is in violation)

I can't stand these companies anymore. They really think they can tell Will what to read? What happed to freedom of speech and thought?? Shouldn't this be against the law? Especially if it's books inside his OWN home! #FreeWilly

#HR #stupidcompanies #freedom #of #speech #stupidity

@freemo is it just me or did qoto go down for a bit?

@trinsec @freemo same. I don't get it.

Me on Friday night: I need to turn off from work and put the computer away.

Also me:
Spends weekend exploring #Lisp-like languages and ends in a #Racket rabbit hole going through #SICP book.

@freemo yeah I only started trying out the others on the list yesterday but Haskell holds a special place in my heart (despite me sucking at it).

@mc interesting alternative. I'll have to look further into it as I have never used it or heard much about it outside of data science and ML circles. I'm curious, do you know if Julia let's you define custom syntax? So that rather than just call functions in the repl as:

Let c= circle(radius=15)
colorize(c, "red")

Instead I could do:

circle.15.color."red"

Or whatever other weird syntax I want.

The reason I'm asking is because from what I understand about the other languages mentioned on thr list, you are able to do this. Meaning that if the syntax used to manipulate the geometric objects turns out to be cumbersome then we'd be able to experiment and make it more intuitive over time without having to touch the low-level Rust code.

@akater yeap, you can do so from GHCi (interactive mode) on the terminal.

@wilfredh you seem like the kind of person that might know about this stuff

A big element of this endeavor would be the ability to guarantee valid types only. Meaning, I should not be able to accidentally use the higher level API to create a square with 5 sides, etc. So, whatever constrains are imposed by my primitives remain. If the higher-level language would also let me prove properties about my specific geometrical object after a series of operations that'd be a huge plus (although I have zero knowledge of this domain). For example, if after some operations (unknowingly to the user) they change a mesh in such a way that it now satisfies conditions for a Delaunay triangulation then it would output a message saying this is the case. Alternatively, given some mesh I should be able to specify "make it X" and it would automatically apply the operations (based on a selection of suitable algorithms) on the mesh that would guarantee that the output does indeed satisfy X.

Hi fediverse,

Which of the following would be the nicest to wrap a low-level 3D geometry (I.e vertices, geometry, topology) operations library written in Rust.

Haskell
Common Lisp (and which implementation?)
Scheme:
Racket
Chicken
Gambit
...

Ideally, I'd like to be able to easily make higher-level operations such as boolean, blend, etc from the low level library and make that as one command in an ergonomic language (with a repl) that allows me to play around easily with various geometrical objects to compose them in increasingly complex ways and then pass the modified object back to the Rust code in case we need to revert a high-level operation operation (this is key). Eventually, a parser would let you pass some math formulae in (Latex?) and execute the live math for you in an interactive way that let's you modify the objects.

Thoughts?

[Boosts appreciated]

#math #programming #Scheme #emacs #fp #latex #haskell #commonlisp #racket #geometry #rust #coding #foss #floss #science #engineering

@zleap @freemo @mur2501 forgot to mention about the acronym. It's both Advanced RISC Machines and Acorn RISC Machine, Arm was originally born from Acorn Computers, nearly died as a company and then reborn again thanks to Apple in order to bring the Apple Newton to life which used the ARM 610 processor.

@zleap @freemo @mur2501 Nope. So, Arm is to RISCV like amd is to Intel (in a way, not in everything). Meaning, Arm has their own ISA (instruction set architecture) of which the most famous is probably the A64 (arm64). Meanwhile, RISC-V aims to be a license free ISA so companies don't have to pay for example.

Another important concept here that is often misunderstood is the difference between an ISA and it's underlying implementation. Meaning, I could have an operation defined as `ADD x y` in Armv8-A (64bit arm ISA) but there are many ways that this function could be implemented in actual hardware. Typically, manufacturers like ST Microelectronics will license both Arm's ISA as well as their internal designs to make a real hardware chip that has implemented the design. However, manufacturer are often free to deviate in their implementations from the "official" Arm one. As long as it still implements all the ISA it can be called "an Arm-based chip/ microcontroller".

In general, if this is the part of electronics you're interested in. Just learn vhdl/verilog.

@freemo how hard would it be to make an aparapi version for Python?

@CommitStrip lol I wish people were like this where I work. Instead, we have code from 20+ years ago that hasn't even been documented...

@khird @freemo yeap! Literally had this experience today while trying to install CalyxOS on my pixel. Tried 5 different cables and the problem ended up being 3 tons of lint stuck in the usbc socket where it would let it go deep enough to charge but not deep enough to transfer data.

@freemo I feel like this is most gay Venezuelans lol