jakub_h

Because he had no nose?

Well, Emacs is still single-threaded, if I'm not mistaken, so it's a good fit. :)

Also relevant? http://www.htdp.org/2003-09-26/Book/curriculum-Z-H-2.html

> When I lived on the countryside in Australia we didn't lock the doors.

Well of course you don't; the robbers die while still crossing the perilous deserts and/or trying to avoid lethal wildlife.

> No, there were days when people did not even lock their cars and their houses

That must have been an extremely long time ago: http://www.ancientresource.com/lots/roman/romankeys_locks.ht...

Thank you for this interesting factoid. :)

Perhaps a better analogy would be driving cars vs. designing car engines? At least I vaguely recall something like this from Amazon reviews of SICP.

All this sounds very comforting, considering that the oil is going to run out (* ). The north being inspirational to us, I hope, will continue into the future.

((* ) And by "run out", I mean "become unprofitable to pump considering the market price", of course.)

It's much more difficult to limit suicidal people's access to ropes, and suicides utilize firearms twice as often as ropes (at least in the US, apparently: http://lostallhope.com/suicide-statistics/us-methods-suicide). Based on the 80/20 principle, rope control should come way after gun control (but general healthcare system changes should probably precede both).

What about using deep learning to properly classify arxiv papers about deep learning (and other things, perhaps)? ;)

I love the way in which LibreOffice can export a PDF with the original document still embedded. If a scannable code on a paper document could contain all the data needed to recreate it without any loss, you'd get effectively the same thing in a tangible form.

Have you heard of Oberon? That's like three people in a year. Including building the computer. ;)

You might ultimately only need some specialized "neural processing instruction set" for either the GPU cores or for the CPU cores. Or at least, I don't see any obvious obstacles to that.

> This project is the sixth attempt to implement the model:

Finally, the sixth attempt is written in the right language! Now it will succeed for sure.

Frankly, these questions sound like a red herring. Or rather, they seem to imply that the actual question to ask is "on what other hardware can we efficiently run mainframe software?". And not, for example, how to evolve software architectures in a way that will allow them to run on contemporary and/or future hardware.

Didn't pseudo-time solve these things a long time ago, only to be forgotten (and not developed further) by the mainstream?

Isn't 8 GB per core still reasonable? Especially if you can share indices and buffer caches across cores, for example. There must still be diminishing returns for caching.

Isn't CL a perfectly reasonable thing to interface with Vulcan? Given its power, and things like compile macros, it could be possible to generate versions of some functions (array-oriented ones, for example) that would run on the GPU using SPIR. Other interfaces AFAIK don't support passing code like this (CUDA likes pre-compiled code (can it receive source texts?), OpenCL AFAIK accepts source code but you have to generate text and the driver has to compile it again.).

(Note: I'm personally interested in this.)

True, but there's a strong connection mentioned in the article.

> Normal people aren't structurally important parts of the economy.

I suggest we try to remove them to see what happens! :)

Expected LibGen. Was not disappointed.

Sampling bias, perhaps? Or how that thing is called? If there's, say, 20% of women in a field and 80% men, and you get treated badly twice as likely by an average woman than by an average man, you'd still observe (in absolute terms) more instances of bad treatment from your male peers. Surely this could distort one's perception.

Will help with the language, or with the bureacracy? I'd be surprised about the latter, but I'd also be surprised if they gave much trouble to an educated productive individual. Hodně štěstí!

Is Germany really as convoluted, or more convoluted, than the US case law, the patchwork of local tax legislation in the US, or the US tax code, for example? I never understood how those things could ever be navigated by one person.

It almost sounds like the insurance business. You're lured by the flashy ads. You sign the contract. Shit happens. The insurance company tries to weasel out if they can away with it. New insurers happily ignore the stories.

"following Lisp and Dylan's footsteps"

I hope not, especially regarding popularity.

I got some vague VPRI-ish/Bret Victor-ish vibe when reading the article. Direct manipulation and constraint solving definitely fits the bill here.

I thought that type stability was actually a crucial notion in real-world dynamic language implementations? Witness inline caches and polymorphic inline caches, for example.

So you're redeploying one binary instead of another binary. You still need to deploy something.

In fact, what about just switching connections to freshly launched VMs?

> This is what makes your argument moot - because they do gimbal, and the gimbaling is what creates the moment/torque. In a way that is very nearly analogous to twisting your hand around slightly to balance a broomstick.

The point of the inverted pendulum problem is that the torque on a long, thin, ground-supported object (or even just any ground-supported object with a narrow base or a hinge on its bottom) is a function of its orientation. That gives you a second order differential equation for tilt. This is NOT the case with the free-flying rocket because the engine is rotating along with the rocket. You could simulate the inverted pendulum actively, by rotating the engine so that it has a fixed orientation relative to the ground (up to the gimbaling limit, which is usually <10 degrees), but you actually want to do the opposite with the landing rocket (with significant damping to boot). Basically, you want the active control system to simulate a normal pendulum, just turned upside down (but with the damping so that it doesn't actually oscillate).

> The rocket is unstable in position and inclination (attitude).

Not the latter unless you make it behave in that way. You could also check on the Apollo LM landing guidance, maybe it will become more clear if you study that.

> So you're right that there's more to it, but it's still the inverted pendulum problem for attitude

No, it's not. That's the point.

> Are you saying Bezos is lying in this post when he explicitly says "When you do a vertical landing, you’re solving the classic inverted pendulum problem"? He would know, and I don't see a reason for him to lie about it.

No, I'm saying that this phrasing makes no sense. Remember that Goddard made a similar mistake when reasoning about rockets and pendulums, so arguments to authority are demonstrably to be avoided here. A significant clarification on his part could make it more comprehensible what he actually meant, but making any kind of analogy to a ground-supported object is clearly bad when talking about a free-flying body.