I remember one from a friend named Roger.
"Keep your eyes off the foxes, or your car will end up like boxes."
53 karma · joined September 4, 2023
I remember one from a friend named Roger.
"Keep your eyes off the foxes, or your car will end up like boxes."
Hence the commonly-encountered phrase: You believed a naive ngram reference? Oh my sweet summer child.
I hope this doesn't turn out like the CD-rewinder I wasted my money on last year.
Competitive prompting?
Miffed that they are numbered 1-10, not 0-9. Something to work on in my next lifetime.
Perhaps add h: keeping the therapist's cell phone in a sound-isolated enclosure.
Of tangential interest: I recently heard that Faraday, while discovering new electromagnetic phenomenon, then turned to either a linguist or classicist for help in assigning/inventing terms for them. (I cannot find a link for this just now, so consider this heresay.)
Is parsing and rendering SVG well-pipelined at this point? Offhand it might be cache-friendly. I have not tried a simple elapsed-time-in-loop test, but to me geometric screen-painting happens instantly enough.
I can imagine a separate branch in computer evolution, if PCs had not happened, where graphical terminals would have evolved to render something SVG-like, support a mouse, and send back simple mousedown/mouseup/x/y data.
One lesson of this thread could be: There is enough interest in text-based "schematics" -- aka netlist import -- for Kicad layout to add support for the approach, if it does not currently exist.
> We have implemented (fully or partially) 48 POSIX Functions from above. ...[however] These 24 POSIX Functions will Halt when TCC WebAssembly calls them…
I was just wondering this evening: I have seen WASM described as an environment for selectively subsetting interfaces, in part for security. Is the following sometimes done?: Compile and link to a "glibc" which implements only a subset of calls, again for runtime security?
If you get too far from understanding/practicing implementation, soon enough you will not be competent enough to produce a specification.
I wonder how far one might go introducing common lisp with parallel examples in javascript and python -- something like a Rosetta Stone approach, also likening ')' and '}' and <dedent>.
Obligatory?: The pdf is not the territory.
> Moddable created the XS JavaScript engine specifically for IoT products. It is the only JavaScript engine that supports the modern JavaScript language standard on the embedded microcontrollers that power most IoT products. It is designed to be efficient, secure, standard, and extremely reliable. And, of course, it makes it possible for IoT products to allow users to customize them.
Relatedly, I don't know whether, given argv[0] and your targets, one can at least copy the named file, even if one cannot open it directly for reading.
Thinking of the general need in these situations to produce a custom-named interpreter/executable, could it be worth accessing the program name itself to find a paired source file? E.g., in invoking ./foo2.o it would look for ./foo2.code -- a two-file distribution allowing to double-click on the executable??
Could there be a non-unicode flag at the end of a special elf file which allows arbitrary unicode data to be concatenated after that? I.e., an agreed loader-ignore-hereafter convention or similar? (Asking with no knowledge of ELF internals, besides hints given in the OP.)
> The lone-embed tool copies the lisp code into the ELF and then creates a LOAD segment for it. Linux then maps in the embedded code automatically at load time before the interpreter has even started.
And the discussion which follows I found very informative.
Same here. By analogy, while any chemical reaction is in principle reversible, the kinetics "forward" and "backward" are unlikely to be equally favorable.
Likewise, with atomic nuclei, fission and fusion tend to be favored under distinctly different conditions.
The article does mention "far from equilibrium." Could this be a caveat similar to "in mice"?