kruhft

Can it track eye movements? A cheap eye tracker would be awesome so all the window's i'm looking at are in focus.

#whut? (headline)

What book is that?

ty

I remember the first time I saw a Vice magazine, back in Vancouver just sitting on the ground in a pile right past the Burrard Street Bridge.

Best media magazine then now an empire.

X

"God (sic) created the integers, the rest, was left to people."

Can't remember.

"If it cannot be done with integers, it cannot be done"

Von Neumann

Web Components were interesting but too complicated and never gained traction at Autodesk (my former employer) where we just ended up going with React, which is actually a pretty good solution to the crappy ecosystem that browser based programming has become.

Check out Curtis Yarvin's work on this, he problably solved it in an interesting way with how he's configured the current Urbit node system.

"God Damn Protection Racket"

You might find the other papers interesting:

http://kruhft.busfactor1.ca/the-eth-papers/

Nice.

Any questions? Eratta? Comments?

Yup: http://www.mplayerhq.hu/DOCS/HTML/en/menc-feat-mpeg.html

Does mencoder support encoding of MPEG-1?

Somebody read my code once and commented on my improper use of 'mod' or something like that. It then turned into a long discussion on how they might be incorrect, and so on and so forth on Reddit, back and forth on Lisp.

I love Lisp. It's a great language with great programmers.

One of the best books on programming there is. Every time I get the gumption to work on one of the chapters from this cookbook, I always learn something new.

:+1:

"Why on Earth would anyone want to use a language with such horrific syntax?!"

What is it with statements like this? It just sounds like a 'meme' to me, that everyone hears (even from advocates like this one) at first that the 'syntax' (of which there is a lot less than most languages in a Lisp) is 'horrible'?

Of course, we, the learn-ed of Lisp, say that after a while the 'parens just disappear', which they don't, but they sure help (when combined with Paredit) in defining code like structures that can be manipulated with ease in your editor.

I know the author is just trying to do a bit of a 'sandwich' with the article, but please, advocates and enemies of Lisp, just give up on picking on the parens. It's stupid and been done a million times. It's like 'why do we have to type so much to enter programs! such a pain!'.

Boring.

The automators are automated.

Pages are horrible money grabs and a waste.

Create a group. They get feed priority from what I've been able to gather.

Building a new type of computer.

Good to know, thanks.

As long as it still works. :)

Relevant, alternate implementation for C and C++:

https://www.gnu.org/software/gperf/

Just come to Canada.

We already figured out how to do Health Care where everyone pays.

So were Lisp Machines.

Maybe 'quantum resistance':

IOTA does not use traditional asymmetrical (public-key) cryptography algorithms which depend on not being able to efficiently computing discrete logarithms or factoring numbers (which are believed to be easy on a quantum computer).

Instead, its signatures are based on the Winternitz signature scheme (slightly modified for ternary) which only depend on the impossibility of reversing hash functions (Kerl in case of IOTA which is a ternary version of Keccak), which is believed not to be that as easy on a quantum computer as factoring a number (although any reversing of a (hash) function can be done more easily on a quantum computer than a traditional computer).

Disadvantage of Winternitz scheme is that signatures are one-time (every signature reveals parts of your key); therefore users have to be careful not to reuse addresses that have been spent.

Source: https://iota.stackexchange.com/questions/203/how-does-iota-m...

I also found something about 'the length of the computation of the hash function' somewhere as making it more quantum resistant but can no longer find the reference.

No, you can just finally afford one during Middle Age.

Big suprise. Unlike the rich kids when you were young.

Now imagine if IncludeOS worked for everything written in C/C++. Instant on the metal interpreters and compilers.

For Modula II.

Imagine if every language was it's own Interactive Shell with no kernel. Scripting and functional languages already have this, as do C and C++[1].

You would lose language interchangeability on the system until someone wrote compilers for the other language software that they want to support.

And who doesn't like to write compilers in their favorite language.

[1] https://github.com/root-project/cling