ZephyrP

It is a translation of "dokós", a plank of wood that would serve as a joist or rafter. An ancient palestinian Phineas Gage stuck through with a classical age 2x10, if you will.

Although I'm late to the pile-on and all the good takes have grown old and gotten replies, I cannot let this grave insult against my people go unanswered.

Elixir, if anything, really excels at communicating the intentions of the (occasionally esoteric) architectural demands that the Erlang originally fortified decades ago, often encountered when using OTP. This, alongside that tower of respected Elixir tooling, adhering to Erlang's norms which, once past "mere" interoperability within BEAM, is still supremely important when e.x. minimizing laborious/unusual syntax requirements when using Elixir modules from 'naive' Erlang code. This is part of a more wide-reaching feeling, one of common concerns being important to address in Elixir (and Erlang) for the health of the franchise, not just as grist for the mill of an ancient FP hyperwar, each warring cybergang being willing to die for their preferred juridical interpretation of a bug report.

A long-forgotten machine on a DoD network sounds like the kind of host that could serve for idle scanning or any other technique using a forged source address and a predictable dummy host; I imagine that arpwatch takes a view of network security focused on classifying frames and less on connection behavior.

It's certainly not an "elitist initiation ordeal" to ask a potential crewmate to sketch a library function they've selected, what abstraction or ideas it implicitly contains, and what bearing those have on their overall approach. GP's use of `bisect_left` is instructive here:

  In [2]: Solution().findMin([1, 0, 1, 1])
  Out[2]: 4

However, requesting a bug-free implementation of `bsearch()` (to say nothing of the actual problem being solved) during a timed, in-person interview is less a structured rehearsal of an individual's unique capacities, and more of a jumping-in ritual proving only a willingness to die for their cybergang.

Change keeps coming, even when the wire format of a protocol has ossified. I've spent years in security and router performance at Cisco, wrote a respectable fraction of the flagship's L3 and L2-L3 (tun) firewall. I merged a patch on this tried-and-true firewall just this year; it's now deployed.

As vendors are eager to remind us, custom silicon to accelerate everything between L1 to L7 exists. That said, it is still the case in 2025 that the "fast path" data-plane will end up passing either nothing or everything in a flow to the "slow path" control-plane, where the most significant silicon is less 'ASIC' and more 'aarch64'.

This is all to say that the GP's comments are broadly correct.

In the mid-2000s, I attended evangelical 'kids night'. Held each Friday at the dead-center of an unincorporated community in rural Colorado.

The "cool" youth pastor who was responsible for these events told us "the Gospel's authors are anonymous, their names are totally traditional". I never had the sense that this view was in any way heretical or contentious, even in a strain of Christianity that strongly emphasized the historicity of the Bible.

The pandemic killed a fantastic meetup called "Papers We Love" here in San Diego. I miss the many great people (and papers) I met through PWL, and would be thrilled to see something like it again.

If not, we're just going to have to jump-start it ourselves.

I traveled through a town in California known for it's apple orchards. There, I ate a 'Hawkeye' apple, which was said to be an ancestor of the 'Red Delicious'.

The 'Hawkeye' isn't my new favorite, but was good enough to appreciate how much it's shameful descendent had dishonored the name of this otherwise respectable apple family.

of course, but an LFSR is going to be faster (provided you have a reasonable number of rounds in your Feistel cipher), have some situationally desirable statistical properties and is easier to adapt than a format-preserving encryption technique like a Feistel network.

Feistel ciphers are a good technique for doing just this but it's also worth noting that if all you are looking for is "produce a pseudorandom permutation of 1..N without actually shuffling a list of numbers" you can also use an LFSR as well.

I wouldn't call it "commonly used" but it's popular enough to be used in a number of Cisco products (and elsewhere, I'm sure).

In general, not really, but the most common string comparison instruction in x86_64 leaves the last character of one of the strings being compared with the other one just being a pointer into the C-style string.

This isn't to refute your overarching point, but even the oldest of stories, the 'Epic of Gilgamesh', begins with the titular character accused of not "leaving maidens to their warriors", leading the gods (and people) of Ur to try to end his reign. I think the story makes it clear - this behavior was totally unacceptable for a king, even in what the Sumerians considered "those ancient days, when bread had been tasted for the first time".

Do you see this is an expression of secular "neo-Persian" nationalism, or as part of a reaction to Iran's religious conservatives who'd read literal truth in the Quran's story of a heroic Zuul al Qarayn (whom I've heard is identified with Alexander)?

Very neat. Do you implement option parsing in "magic getopt" or can you (somehow?) handle setting up the option string arguments used by the more familiar variants in getopt(3)?

Having a slew of physical theories with profound existential ramifications to choose from, why do you think the "many-worlds interpretation" is particularly connected to secularization?

I worked as a framer with my dad for around 4 years in the mid 2000s. We framed small residential homes in southern Colorado and although we would always carry a hammer on our belt to "align" a stud, bend flashing and drive in nails that hit a knot; nail guns hooked up to a shared compressor was how nearly everything got, well, nailed together.

I got the same result as you, but in my mind the expression "twice as likely to purchase" could just as easily have meant P(C) = 2 * P(D) / 1 + P(D) (yielding 0.35824) rather than 2 * P(C) (yielding 0.32841).

I calculated a similar maximum horsepower to your own estimation (6.1 hp) when I used the average direct solar radiation (164 W m^2 @ 27 m^2 surface). This rose to 41 hp when using values for "a typical cloudless day at solar zenith" (1120 W m^2) [1]. The wattage will square when doubling each side, so if you were to double each length of the surface, you'd be up to 151 extremely hypothetical hp - just like the Honda Insight!

Back on planet earth, the most common solar panels have efficiencies between 15-20% [2]. Direct radiation is diminished by the cosine of the angle of solar tilt. It takes another ~2 hp to overcome drag at just 30mph [3]. Who knows how much this setup would weigh. You'd have to be Speed Racer's long-lost brother in Arizona to win a mid-summer dead-heat race at noon with a go-cart.

[1] https://www.newport.com/t/introduction-to-solar-radiation

[2] https://css.umich.edu/factsheets/photovoltaic-energy-factshe...

[3] https://web.archive.org/web/20190616063447/http://phors.loco...

In addition to fiction, qntm is a sharp, versatile programmer. greenery [1], their unobtrusive and generally tasteful python library for manipulating regular expressions, is also accompanied by high-quality technical writing on related topics [2] [3] [4] [5].

[1] https://github.com/qntm/greenery

[2] https://qntm.org/greenery

[3] https://qntm.org/lego

[4] https://qntm.org/plants

[5] https://qntm.org/fsm

> This is very untrue. While loop and a stack.

>> You can still simulate

> any function outside DSPACE(O(1)) can't

The space complexity of the algorithm is only incidentally related to the number of unique variables required to represent it's state.

You said it best:

> The fact that you have an implicit call stack doesn't change the space complexity

> Manifestly, recursion is never strictly necessary, and is furthermore almost always slower, or anyway no faster, than you could do maintaining state "by hand".

Recursion is required in procedures like Ackermann's Function [1]. You can still simulate or write functions that avoid the syntactic fact that the procedure definition refers (either directly or indirectly) to itself, but you'll always be papering over the fact that it cannot be implemented with a fixed number of state variables.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ackermann_function

Inconvergent (https://inconvergent.net/) is another stunning generative artist as well; their generative trees (browser version: https://zv.github.io/static/algorithmic-tree.html) are especially evocative of Fishdraw.

I know awk (well, gawk) pretty well and I still regret not having just learned perl.

Extremely knowledgeable and warm person on top of that. He's the genuine next level.

It seems to me that once you're in the terrain of "feeling" requiring a (suitable) nervous system, you've already crossed the borders of "p-zombie" experience, having already recognized analogous behavioural and physiological reactions as evidence of "feeling" (whatever that might imply).

I get that your point is much broader; the meaning of "feeling" is going to keep staring you in the face when thinking about a question like this, but it's a sophomoric question to anyone who accepts the possibility of it's discovery without a metaphysical understanding of a sunflower's conscious experience.

I'd imagine the honor of "most efficient yield" would belong to root vegetables like sugar beets, yams or potatoes

>> Lee Kuan Yew lives in a giant, gated, guarded compound in the middle of the most valuable real estate in the city

Didn't he die the better part of a decade ago?

Your opening hypothetical leaves the impression that the words which follow it were either an alternate rehearsal for a more blunt observation: "if all your wealth is deflationary, to spend is to lose deflationary currency" or an earnest counterargument-by-analogy which contradicts something very near the bedrock of my own common sense about money; why would anyone with savings in a deflationary currency and the opportunity to spend inflationary currency decide to have & hold that which would decrease in value in favor of (equivalently denominated) spending which won't?

> There is no reason to shit on someone's work just because you think it was a bad idea. It's already done, and it can coexist in the universe with you.

If zaro is wrong (and people pounce on him for being technically wrong), Brython will indirectly be vindicated. If he's right, it's the perfect opportunity for break down just how right he is; e.x, if future client-side languages will be shaped by their suitability for minification or if content compression obviates this.

I think even for new projects, this is good. Nobody arrogates themselves to the belief their project will be as influential as the most well known projects started just for fun (n.b "Just For Fun, Torvalds (2002)") and no critical commenter should pretend they are with replies that hide hostility behind concern for our future... but by the time news of it's development has reached us here, the sliver of chance that Brython will join their ranks is no longer microscopic. I'm reminded of early CoffeeScript (and even Javascript itself), which could have avoided numerous pitfalls with early constructive(!) criticism from cantankerous commentators.

No matter what, the armchair quarterbacks will be taken down a notch if they're wrong and are worth your time otherwise. Those early complaints help decide if your future is filled with a junkyard of half-baked software or manages to harness our collective wisdom (with a healthy dose of individual discretion) to refine itself into something elegant and powerful.

It's not that hard to see Brython doing just that either; you don't need to be Nostradamus to foretell a prophecy of an easy-to-use, "just works" implementation of Python3 in the browser profoundly altering the current landscape, shaping our future toolbox and even what software is thought possible.