animaomnium

"settecento" can be read as "seven hundred" in Italian; gramps is proposing to use a more specific word as a tag for Italian art from the 1700s. Of course, 700 is not 1700, hence the "drop 1000 years". The prefix seventeen in Italian is "diciassette-" so perhaps "diciasettecento" would be more accurate for the 1700s. (settecento is shorter, though.)

Hope this clarifies. Not to miss the forest for the trees, to reiterate, the main takeaway is that it may be better to define and use a specific tag to pinpoint a sequence of events in a given period (e.g. settecento) instead of gesturing with something as arbitrary and wide as a century (18th century art).

Surprisingly clear and straightforward explanations of staking, liquidity pools, etc. in a legal document.

In other news, is it really a surprise that everything is securities fraud?

It is a waste of time to continue to try to develop a power one does not have.

Manipulating (e.g. "people who down vote [sic] refuse to believe"), spreading fear (e.g. "[mind manipulation occurs on] an 'industrial' scale"), and inflating one's own ego (e.g. "I am a renegade of thought control") contribute little to the discussion of this article.

That is all.

Very interesting paper! Proposes (with lower bound of 1.3% chance) that the solar system may have passed through a local interstellar cloud, which would have caused the heliosphere to shrink to smaller than the orbit of the earth (0.22 au) some 2-3 mya. This may have affected the Earth's atmosphere and climate. Scroll down for some cool illustrations of a simulation showing how the heliosphere would have been tiny with an elongated tail in a denser interstellar medium. There's also a map showing the interstellar cloud relative to the trajectory of the solar system.

3tubs × 40gal/tub × $3.50/gal = $420.

Wow, you're spending $420 on shipping? How far away are they keeping those slaves?

If you're looking for the same sort of walled-garden corporate-degen vibe, try reddit? They even have nested conversations, like on Hacker News! /s

But seriously, Discourse is good forum software. You can self-host it or pay for a hosted instance. An example instance is IRLO, https://internals.rust-lang.org

There's a big number of things you can search for, but it's a finite number. There are certainly people interested in curating resources for their specific niche in exchange for curated resources in other niches, across the entire internet. Perhaps through a social web of trust. We need a new search engine resistant to sybil attacks. One that takes the social aspect of searching—connecting you with the relevant experts—into account.

"on NixOS" is the new "arch btw"

Oh that's cool! Interested to see where your research leads. Could you drop me a link to where the interaction net → cuda compiler resides? I skimmed through the HVM2 repo and just read the .cu runtime file.

Edit: nvm, I read through the rest of the codebase. I see that HVM compiles the inet to a large static term and then links against the runtime.

https://github.com/HigherOrderCO/HVM/blob/5de3e7ed8f1fcee6f2...

Will have to play around with this and look at the generated assembly, see how much of the runtime a modern c/cu compiler can inline.

Btw, nice code, very compact and clean, well-organized easy to read. Rooting for you!

Fala Taelin, nice work! Does HVM2 compile interaction nets to e.g. spirv, or is this an interpreter (like the original HVM) that happens to run on the GPU?

I ask because a while back I was messing around with compiling interaction nets to C after reducing as much of the program as possible (without reducing the inputs), as a form of whole program optimization. Wouldn't be too much harder to target a shader language.

Edit: Oh I see...

> This repository provides a low-level IR language for specifying the HVM2 nets, and a compiler from that language to C and CUDA HVM

Will have to look at the code then!

https://github.com/HigherOrderCO/HVM

Edit: Wait nvm, it looks like the HVM2 cuda runtime is an interpreter, that traverses an in-memory graph and applies reductions.

https://github.com/HigherOrderCO/HVM/blob/5de3e7ed8f1fcee6f2...

I was talking about traversing an interaction net to recover a lambda-calculus-like term, which can be lowered to C a la lisp in small pieces with minimal runtime overhead.

Honestly the motivation is, you are unlikely to outperform a hand-written GPU kernel for like ML workloads using Bend. In theory, HVM could act as glue, stitching together and parallelizing the dispatch order of compute kernels, but you need a good FFI to do that. Interaction nets are hard to translate across FFI boundaries. But, if you compile nets to C, keeping track of FFI compute kernel nodes embedded in the interaction network, you can recover a sensible FFI with no translation overhead.

The other option is implementing HVM in hardware, which I've been messing around with on a spare FPGA.

Nice! Should be called a "kanvolution", my 2¢.

Good points, thanks. I will note that non-subscription friendships generally exist on the basis of donated space and goodwill, though.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Only 15 bucks a month for unlimited hangouts with your friends!

Satire, in any other universe.

Clearly that isn't the case, surely Mike Pall would have heard of it, when he brought back LuaJIT from the future, that is.

Grug Brained Linux.

You could read the whole thing but it would be quicker to infer that if I need to explain the joke,

"but bertrand... I am pagliacci"

Induction: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/

eleventh letter of the greek alphabet, derived from phoenecian "lamed", etc.

The volume of 240mL of water. Fill a standard 500mL water bottle to the bottom of the cone: half of that.

     =  500mL
    /_\ 2 cups
    |_| 1 cup 
    |_| zilch

* Not to scale.

For the curious, "do be do be do" is a seminal paper in the literature on algebraic effects that introduces frank, quirky little language that has algebraic effects but not handlers, at least in the traditional sense.

Traditionally, an effect handler is an interpreter for a stream of commands, conforming to a specific interface. Generally, handlers surface in languages as a sort of generalized try/catch mechanism, that receive a "callback" to resume the "exception" that produced the command. In frank, not so.

Frank is based around the idea of operators, which generalize functions with the capability of interpreting multiple streams of commands. A plain function can be seen, in fact, as the special case of an operator that interprets no commands.

Operators are organized around ports and pegs. Pegs are the set of side effects that a computation needs. Each port is an offer to extend that set for downstream callers. Instead of building up a union of effects that each function needs, Frank propogated ambient ability inwards. Operators can then be composed based on the ports and pegs they offer.

operator: <port>X → [peg]Y

This works partially because operators are shallow handlers and not deep handlers. Handlers interpret commands: if the handler itself is in scope when interpreting a command, then the language is said to have deep handlers. Frank has shallow handlers, meaning that commands are interpreted in an environment without the handling operator present. Shallow handlers give greater control to the programmer with respect to how commands are interpreted: operators can propagate ambient ability, or choose not to.

(This is a bad explanation because you already need to know what I'm talking about to understand what I'm talking about, but oh well.)

My one critism of frank is that the effect model is kinda hard for the working programmer to understand. I can explain Koka effects as "exceptions plus multiple resumption". I don't really have a categorical phrase for frank, and that's its innovation. This isn't so much a criticism but a plea for the pedagogical ramp to this research to improve.

do be do be do.

If you're still curious, check out the compiler github repo:

https://github.com/frank-lang/frank

And if anything is wrong in the above explanation, please correct me, because we all benefit from Cunningham's Law in the end. Allow me to be the fool.

One idea is to embed the guesses in the url fragment (perhaps delta encoded) and from that url fragment, generate a social media preview image with a horizontal discrete gradient of the guesses.

You would need a server to generate the preview images ofc, but something like a subdomain redirect to a cloudflare worker or what-have-you could be sufficient. If done right the generated previews could be pretty small.

Wired has a deal with Quanta to republish some of their stories. There are other stories from Quanta in Wired; I no longer read Wired, but I believe that this is how I first learned of Quanta.

> There are two interesting contenders worthy of mention: Pijul [and] Fossil

Also might be worthy to mention Jujitsu [0], a vcs out of Google with a git-compatible backend and more ergonomic interface [1].

[0]: https://github.com/martinvonz/jj

[1]: What if we could replace Git, Jujutsu might give us a shot https://v5.chriskrycho.com/essays/jj-init/

There are a few research languages where handling secrets and constant-time operations correctly is a first-class feature. See for example:

https://github.com/google/rune

I don't know why I expected this to be about Self, that one language with prototypes.

https://selflanguage.org

...but only after the dot-com bubble burst

Thanks for taking a read! Indeed, the argument presented in most of the article is refuted using a similar argument to your own at the end:

> Unlike GPT, as people, we all share the reality of human experience. This is a reality that can’t be generated: it is a vocabulary we all share. I hope that the fundamental human need for real social connection—outside of the hollow digital realities we define—will drive people to seek more real-world friendships than the number of digital ones they prompt into existence. When they do, I hope that these friends look to expand the overlap between their respective vocabularies, working towards bridging the gap between their shared realities.

> This argument presented in this post has at least one fatal flaw (among many): it assumes that the path of “getting lost in a private fractured reality” is the path most people will elect to follow. In practice, however, I think the novelty will soon wear off: most people will get sick of said Content Deluge after a while. There are only so many procedurally generated landscapes the eyes can handle before the body wants to step away and experience real nature. The curse of those forced to inhabit a fractured reality will likely be relegated to those who consider themselves members of the Eternally Online. I am grateful to not be counted among their ranks.

To respond to a few particular points you mentioned:

> [...] more content on YouTube than any human could ever possibly consume. How is adding more really going to fundamentally change our shared experience?

Point 3 mentions that we already face this problem; the content deluge on YouTube and similar platforms has already fundamentally changed our shared experience.

> [...] that content will still be shared, will still go viral, will still be a shared reality about which we can talk with our friends.

The content that is likely to go viral will likely be engineered to be so, ehibiting biases induced by algorithms for generation or algorithms for selection. These algorithms are likely to maximize some proxy of a metric for profit, such as attention, as expressed in the following (admittedly easy to miss) line:

> The shared plains of collective consciousness [will be] ravaged by a sea of memetic tofu, each thought allocated to the highest bidder.

I guess I fell prey to my own argument here, expressing an idea with a niche vocabulary, losing clarity in the process. I'll most likely revise this line for greater clarity, thanks!

Thank you for taking the time to read the post and write a thoughtful reply. You make a good point: it is hard to find good links. These links suck. I apologize for this poor first-order approximation: I want to link to stuff interesting enough to merit a post or two in their own right.

To that end, I keep a list of every interesting thing that I read. I plan to index that list, and make it searchable. Reliance on a search engine is a stop-gap to keep scope sensible at this point. There's nothing stopping other people from taking this idea and running with it.

Given your personal involvement in this area, I understand your apprehension. Like you, I want to see a denser, more interesting web. But without tools to overcome the static friction of linking things together, I don't think we'll see density and utility of links increase any more than it already has. That's what I hoped to highlight in this piece.

For a more physically-accurate fluid sinulation using Cellular Automata, see Reintegration Tracking:

https://michaelmoroz.github.io/Reintegration-Tracking/