entaloneralie

This book changed our lives.

(co-author of 100r.ca)

Donsol is a bit closer to Gamot and Card Crawl than Scoundrel which uses 44 cards, no red face cards, aces and no jokers, but same style yeah.

That's enough koolaid for you now stephen.

This seems to all be building up to zero accountability scenarios, we didn't declare war, AI did, we didn't crash the stock market, AI did.

This is currently a topic I'm researching for a presentation, while looking into this, I came across Tobias Ruck's recent video explaining why we should write software in Latin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGZpaqMha0o

It does :) It's CP/M commands(era, ren, etc..) except they work in postfix instead of infix.

There's a subleq host that runs eforth on uxn!

https://git.sr.ht/~rabbits/subleq-forth

I'm too scared to leave the comfy world of commutative monoids.

For trailing zeros yeah, or if you care for stack overflow/underflow. Here's a few primitives if you wanna try it out:

https://paste.sr.ht/~rabbits/cd2369cc7c72bfad0fcd83e27682095...

I never claimed it was novel, chill.

This is amazing! I love seeing FRACTRAN-shaped things on the homepage :) This reminds me of how 1-bit stacks are encoded in binary:

A stack of zeros and ones can be encoded in a single number by keeping with bit-shifting and incrementing.

    Pushing a 0 onto the stack is equivalent to doubling the number.
    Pushing a 1 is equivalent to doubling and adding 1.
    Popping is equivalent to dividing by 2, where the remainder is the number.

I use something not too far off for my daily a programming based on a similar idea:

Rejoice is a concatenative programming language in which data is encoded as multisets that compose by multiplication. Think Fractran, without the rule-searching, or Forth without a stack.

https://wiki.xxiivv.com/site/rejoice

Oh damn, I very much misread your message as "I'm 19 and using my own-"

Yeah, okay you have 10 years of dogfooding ahead of me X)

Sorry. Still, goals.

hell yeah that's awesome, I wish I had that insight when I was your age so I didn't waste my time editor hoping for 5 years.

One of the first thing I added was Leap keys-type search, I didn't want modes.

- Leap keys: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_TlE_U_X3c

The second was pragma-mark navigation, so I can always see a overview of the codebase.

- navbar: https://assets.merveilles.town/media_attachments/files/116/2...

I also wanted a local copy buffer specific to the project I work on, so I could easily manage multiple copies of the clipboard data(it's part of how I work).

This was so nice to read, I've been trying to encourage my friends to write their own editors, there's something really nice about the process of working within your own tool. I've used my own text editor(it's call Left) for nearly 10 years, it took time to get it just right, but I iterated over the years(using Left to edit Left) but that time I spent putting it together is paid back 20x by the joy it gives me opening it and working in it in the morning.

I'd do it all over again if I had to.

When it happens to you, you can see how you react. I sure remember having your stance at one point, in the abstract. My personal use of license is reactionary to the situations I've experienced.

I never really looked into the GPL before, their stance on military use includes freedom of usage for institutions whose purpose is surveillance and warfare, my gut feeling is that they might not have asked themselves freedom for whom? the missile manufacturer? I'm not sure that this sounds like freedom.

I'll say this right out, I'll bounce out of open source if I ever see my code used for military purposes. I'll keep releasing works under the MIT until I can no longer in good conscience do so.

It's a good stance, I commend it. Although, there's a history as to why the license is there.

The license exists there so that we were able to do take down requests on OpenSea. We had to make the asset license explicit for OpenSea to take down the copied works off their network.

In a different world where we are not made to participate in crypto ecosystems against our will, we would not have that restriction.

Fantastic talk, there's a bit of context which makes it all the more interesting.

This lecture was delivered on 3 October, 1892, by the newly-appointed Professor of Latin at University College, London, Alfred Edward Housman (1859-1936). This speech would be simply one example from hundreds of the genre, if it weren’t for three remarkable facts.

First, not only had Housman held no previous position in academia, he had spectacularly failed his examinations in Literae Humaniores (Classics) at Oxford. After a brief spell teaching at his old school, and quietly taking a mere Pass degree, he worked at the Patent Office in London, researching Greek and Latin literature in the British Museum Library whenever time allowed. For him to be appointed from outside Classics into the Chair of Latin[1] at one of Britain’s leading universities remains one of the most remarkable events in the history of academia, and indeed has merited a most remarkable book on the subject. Housman went on to become the most important Latin scholar in the world, and serving for a quarter-century as Kennedy Professor Latin at Cambridge (1911-36); when he left UCL he joked how he was “lifted out of the gutter” by his election in 1892.

Second, this is Housman’s first appearance in public as a scholar: he had little to no history of giving lectures, reading papers, or addressing academics in any capacity.[2] That he enters the fray with such clarity of purpose and conviction of voice is a mark of the man.

Third, Housman’s speech stands as one of the most eloquent defences of a principle that in his day was often challenged, and in our day is so rarely defended, viz that knowledge is inherently good: as humans we naturally pursue it; to acquire it gives pleasure; and each person is drawn, in theory if not always in practice, to different modes and realms of knowledge. The Sciences cannot be adequately defended on the basis of the utility they bring, nor the Humanities on the basis of the morally enriching power they are meant to wield. In short, Housman tells the assembled Faculties of Arts, Laws and Science, that their particular expertise is all well and good, but the value they possess for wider society, and indeed the right they assume for moral grandstanding, are capped at a relatively early stage in their intellectual progress. What lies beyond that point requires other justification, or none at all.

From: https://antigonejournal.com/2024/10/a-e-housman-introductory...

Brawndo energy

I'm paying infrastructure costs for our little art community, chatbot crawling our servers and ignoring robots.txt, mining the work of our users so it can make copies, and being told that I don't get because this is such a paradigm shift, is pretty great..

After using cc<< for non-trivial programs, it's about as quirky as the Plan 9 C compiler, the lack of multi-dimensional arrays is the one thing that trips me up the most with cc<<

It's complete in sofar as being capable of compiling C programs, but it has a few quirks.

https://git.sr.ht/~vdupras/duskos/tree/master/item/fs/doc/co...

Came here to say exactly that, cc<< blows these numbers out of the water. Strange choice from the author.

Private, Dedicated, Plural..

Sign the Google Docs.

These people are clueless af.

That would be Fanny Price

Did you mean the REFAL rewriting language?

I have a little collection of them. I keep the small Hemmi bamboo on the navigation table at all time.

https://wiki.xxiivv.com/site/slide_rule

I've seen this variance used a lot in the code golfing challenges I participate in, I feel like if I called it something other than Fractran, it wouldn't be long before someone points out that this is quite like fractran and I ough to call that

I don't, sorry. I have played with rewriting systems a lot, but not within the lens of computability. One thing that I've noticed where that some rules can be inferred to be exhaustive(an exhaustive rule can be applied without searching for another rule for as long as the rule can be applied), and that a program where all the rules have less tokens on the right side than on the left side are not turing complete.

https://wiki.xxiivv.com/site/pocket_rewriting

Conway's Fractran traditionally compares the accumulator against reduced fractions, but computationally-speaking, getting to the gcd of a fraction does little more than getting rid of otherwise valuable information used during comparison to match against a restricted set of fractions. The support for catalysts, symbols found on both sides of a rewrite rule, makes for a simpler and faster implementation.

  15/6 red [green] > blue [green]
  5/2 red > blue

  red green

These two fractions are not equal and reducing the first into the second, eliminates the capability to match against it only when the catalyst green is present in the accumulator.