ac42

Let's call BS.

It's inane to claim existence being the root of all evil, because, yeah, it's the root of friggin' _everything_.

Nothing is forced on "you" because without existence there is no "you". Or anti-natalists could just as easily be blamed of "depriving" the non-born of their chance to live. Ouch.

I, for one, enjoy life (and don't you dare tell me I just don't realise it sucks). I even like working on the hard bits, like underpaid shopkeepers and inhumane working hours, thank you.

Does this factor in the wetware upkeep during the development cycle? Development in C generally is slower than in most of the other languages.

> I also have never heard the fans

We all do now

The Python of drawing tools.

Oh crap, now I see it. Thanks!

And not to forget https://github.com/rsta2/circle

I am not clear why the proof is so long. By induction, the first i elements are already smaller than the A[i], so it's essentially an unoptimised version of

for i: 0..n-1 A[i] = min(A[i:n])

> it's "Rochambeau", a name.

"Connections to the French surname Rochambeau are a folk etymology"

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rochambeau

> Would it be possible to develop a computer from linear transformations?

Yes. The transition function of Turing machines and the working tape can be represented as linear transformations. For quantum computers, these transformations even need to be unitary.

This very standard construction does not conflict with the halting problem: you don't know how often you have to apply this linear transform to your state vector until you got your result.

The article has the wrong caption I would think ("running K3s on a bunch of PIs" would be more fitting).

Netbooting a bare metal environment is quite straightforward for the PI 3 (dnsmasq has it all) and takes around 15-30 secs.

Lol. Mr Lee really has the balls to opine on free speech! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27286628

Since there is no technical definition (not to speak of a measure of degree) of consciousness, we could assume that it is very likely, statistically. All life forms have undergone the same amount of evolution, after all. And even if we are wrong, this assumption would do this world great good.

I bet they later spoke about randomised algorithms like[1]

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

If infection rates were double digit, the "think of what we could save" argument might perhaps deserve some consideration. But as it stands, I feel the only warranted concern is the well-being of Covid survivors.

Lol, I thought this was going to be about crypto currency. Lovely article!

But to be fair, the components you use could be "spiked". Imagine resistors, capacitors, transistors that can find out when they are used in a particular configuration and change their parameters accordingly. /s

It felt a bit less obscure once I figured the relationship to "pecuniary".

Penniless!

"Nerium contains several toxic compounds, and it has historically been considered a poisonous plant."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerium

> It should be noted that on processors that do not support LZCNT, the instruction byte encoding is executed as BSR.

This. Boggles.

For me it's the "<Company I never heard of> is buying <Business I believed to be successful> for $<N>bn" type of headlines that seems to be on the rise.

Using the same line of reasoning, men could argue that the majority of people are men. The whole argument is based on a crude form of survivor bias It's complete and utter bunk.

I think one reason that quitting is so hard is that it is assumed to be a 100 to zero transition. I believe that just as getting addicted, weaning off is a process. Without having established a mindset of truly wanting to quit and without clearly understanding your very own reasons for it, it's way too easy to consider that occasional misstep a total failure of the project.

> Yes, a point adding itself holds the same rule, using the tangent line on the finite field to connect the third

How in discrete metric space do you create a tangent line on a set of points in a finite field?

> Finding extraordinary evidence requires a commitment of extraordinary funds

I would suggest that he answers to his own complaints. There is a great deal of prioritisation going on in science and fringe ideas require too large steps away from where we are today. The real break-throughs in science are ideas that massively reduce the size of the backlog. My guess is that these ideas will receive proper treatment them when the time is right.

Vladimir!

> I simply don't want to see CMake anymore.

It's certainly not CMake. It could happen with Jupyter notebooks or Monoids.

That you wield tools with which you can do a lot doesn't mean you literally can do everything. The purpose of life is replication and you need to figure out how to leave your mark. As other commenters suggested, a family is a practical way to address this. Or write a book, or run classes in your community college, or contribute to OSS.

Keep on doing what you are good at, don't try to be a carpenter. Just don't do it for your ego, or you will end up lonely. Do it for real people (and no no no, don't do it for real people in order to feed your ego).

You're good, don't waste it!

> This is a bare engine that by itself has no ability to recognize and encode instructions of any processor, however it has the ability to become an assembler for any CPU architecture.

This reminds me of the annoyances I encountered when writing an assembler for the TMS320C25 DSP using Microsoft's MASM a 100 years ago...

One of the beautiful features of machine-specific assemblers seemed that they could deal with stuff like short / long jumps or calling conventions for C. Wondering if this one can be tweaked to that level?

Yes, like the parent says, don't overreact. This is totally not symptomatic for lopsided legislation. So please be quiet already, it will be easier for everyone. You are worried you might be next? Kid, grow up, this is life, nobody said it'd be easy. Here's your gun in case the tanks are coming...

/s

"This sentence is wrong."

If we could decide the halting problem, we can write a program P that receives another program x as input, such that P(x) halts if x(P) doesn't halt, and otherwise loops forever. What is the value of P(P)?