ithinkso

If a restart is unacceptable then live-patching a data structure change at runtime requires a #YOLO approach to developement and ice in your veins

Maybe we used it incorrectly but for testing SW on target it's the worst thing I have ever experienced. The 'human readable' keywords are a hidden evil no one should meet. And the sheer amount of them, matched with random Setups and Teardowns, wierd syntax workarounds to do simple stuff, performance...

Now that's a name I haven't heard in a long time...

Burn. It. With. Fire.

I was at Nokia and we used robot, what an absolute pain it was

I think there is some educated-believe that it can be done in n^(2+epsilon) but not in n^2. No proof yet ofcourse

I think SOJs became currency and the duping problem made them worthless and moved the currency to high runes? But what they did with the anni quest to get rid of the rest of the SOJs was clever

Oh man, thanks for the nostalgia trip!

Hard to say, they were all the rage and suddenly just kinda stopped being used (their only purpose now I believe is 2FA, and spam). One reason I can think of is chat history syncing between devices

> you're stuck maintaining bug-for-bug compatibility for every syscall you've ever written

But instead you have to maintain bug-for-bug compability in libc for every API you've ever written. In case of macOS where the kernel and libc/libSystem developments are closed and done by the same entity is makes zero difference (imho).

Also, I understand catiopatio's argument in the sibling comment about doing more in user-space than in kernel in case of a bug, but it breaks down the moment thin wrappers around syscalls exist there. You link to libc/libSystem and use every thin wrapper in existence - now no syscall can be changed (if I understand correctly how macOS works, never used one)

I just don't understand why, what are the benefits to simply offering syscall interface and let developers decide if they want to link to libc

I don't think that's true, the filament evaporates (sublimes?, sublimates?) from the heat and eventually it is too thin to support itself and breaks. That's how I always understood the main failure mode of incadescent bulbs and that's why the above statement confuses me

> (much how the expected lifespan of an incandescent bulb is independent of its previous usage)

Either I'm reading this sentence incorrectly or there is something else I don't understand. How can that statement be true?

> The primer jumps to the definition of probability space and measure in the first few paragraphs

But in a very clear and straightforward way. I think you are laughting at it a bit because you know what (and how big) a measure theory is so you are automatically 'importing' all that knowledge and you think the author did too. But all is required from the reader is literally what a finite set and a fuction are. Students are very often scared of 'big words' because it seem like it should be hard even if a simple definition of that word has just been given, which is a bit weird and I'm not sure where it's comming from

I like this approach a lot, it makes it easier learning harder and harder concepts later when you start this way because you are introduced to correct terminology early instead of analogies and hand-waving. Later material is harder to learn so analogies no longer work and it often feels like 'ok, this is too hard now' or like you are starting over

The other very important part of BOINC and the like is that they offer no monetary gains for your contribution. That's how you eliminate 99,9% of malicious actors and the rest can be eliminated the way you described

It won't work in the PoW scheme because there is presumably some cryptocurrency involved as a reward

> that traditional mathematical convention requires single glyph variable names due to the unfortunate decision to save paper by denoting the product by juxtaposition.

It's not to save paper or because of the product. You don't know the solution to the problem you are working on from the beginning and most of the time is spent writing and writing and writing in a scratchpad trying to solve what you need. Anything longer than a single glyph for variables would be too tedious so everyone evolved to use single letters. And then the papers are written with the same convention since it's natural. You have variable names though with the use of subscripts with the added benefits that it can be (and is) used to elegantly group relevant variables together giving you some sort of abstraction

I once wrote a comment about it here on HN - language in maths is not a programming language used to tell a computer how to go from A to B, but a natural language used to talk about maths between peers. Every natural language have idioms, inconsistences and other quirks. Polish will not change for you so it's easier for you to learn it, it will change in the way that let's polish people communicate better with each other which also include a lot of historical and cultural happenstances. Same with maths

There are attempts like Esperanto and other artificial languages like that and I think any attempts at 'codification' of maths to use some programming language has the same chance of success of wide adoption

> or Coinbase

If the transfer was not done on a blockchain but only in the database of some company, are you really using any new technology?

I think that when people see the world 'monarchy' they still have the vision and ideas of monarchies from medival ages. Modern european monarchies that are still around are nothing but and, to be honest, I have no idea what would have changed really if they were no longer here

Nowadays I can't imagine travelling without Wise (former transferwise) card. I think Revolut also gives you cards but I have not used them personally. I'm using my bank just to pre-pay Wise account when needed

> 4. Scientists don't use Celsius or Fahrenheit. They use Kelvin. Both Celsius and Fahrenheit convert to Kelvin with a linear transformation.

But the slope of the Celsius<->Kelvin is 1.

Not german here, this is standard and I'm a bit confused by your comment.

0 is ground floor.

51% is Bitcoin. That's what decentralized means

Yeah, I was only trying to explain where the issue (assuming smooth=analytic, that you rightfully pointed out) might have come from

> That's not exactly true. For example, arctan = tan^-1 is smooth on R, but its Taylor series only converges for |x|<=1.

This issue creeps in a lot but I think it comes from the complex analysis, where differentiable function is always smooth and analytic (holomorphic).

> "I don't give a fuck anymore"

This article is from 2007

There were*

Very underrated channel: Huygens Optics https://www.youtube.com/c/HuygensOptics

Absolute gem, especially for people that are already aware of the plethora of good but well-known channels and are looking for something new and not recycled. Highly recommended!

That's not what kenshoen meant. For example for the Mandelbrot set we have a function f(z) = z^2 + c for complex z,c and each pixel in the image represents c_x,c_y in c = c_x + i*c_y and then you iterate f(0), f(f(0))... On the other hand, if you have c constant and each pixel represents z_x, z_y in z=z_x + i*z_y instead, then iterating f(z),f(f(z))... gives you a Julia set.

But you can think of f as a function of two complex arguments f(z,c)=z^2 + c and iterate it on the whole domain (two complex = four real dimensions) and then have a picture being a slice through any 2D or (even 3D, which is what parent is talking about) plane you like. In other words, the famous Mandelbrot fractal picture is a slice of f(z,c) through a plane z=0, and Julia set pictures are slices through planes c=constant but there is no reason one cannot make other pictures of f(z,c) (just be careful what you meant by iterating a function f: C^2 -> C).

The burning ship fractal in the article is the same but the function f(z,c) is a bit weirder

As opposed to keeping it inflated indefinitely so that it will never burst

It is irresponsible to do something eccentric if you cannot afford it

I've realized that I check if my internet works by opening HN...

> I'm sure the YT PMs have proof that this improves engagement.

I sometimes wonder if the opposite is true - that the PMs can convince the upper managment that users are staying on the website longer with all those stupid as fuck shit changes, but in reality they are there longer because it's increasingly more difficult to find anything you are looking for

Sort of 'When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure'

The same way as 'I've told you that when we ate lunch last week, remember?'. The point is to make sure Slack is treated the same way as a conversation, not as a documentation and project history