« first day (2960 days earlier)      last day (1955 days later) » 
00:00 - 16:0016:00 - 00:00

4:00 PM
Well you know
I don't mind pet theories
It's fun to work on models even if they're not realistic
 
the trap is not to convince yourself that it's reality
 
and it's fun to work within a different set of assumptions
 
been working on thin-shell wormholes and it's several layers of stupid
It's also pretty bloody harduous to do it properly
It's like everyone who worked on the topic didn't give a shit on proving anything about it
there isn't even a proof that the geodesic equation makes sense
 
there's an old remark of Kierkegaard I'm fond of
“If Hegel had written his whole logic and had written in the preface that it was only a thought-experiment, in which at many points he still steered clear of some things, he undoubtedly would have been the greatest thinker who has ever lived. As it is he is comic.”
 
4:03 PM
:D
I remember some quote like
"If communism was scientific they would have tested it on mice"
I've got a big book of theories on the mind and matter
and there's some part about how some of them are like
fine to entertain as a theory
but you'd be thrown in the asylum if you took them seriously
"By a silly theory I mean one which may be held at the time when one is talking or writing professionally, but which only an inmate of a lunatic asylum would think of carrying in daily life."
"No one in his senses can [...] regard his arm-chair or his poker as being literaly societies of spirits or thoughts in the mind of God."
that's the one
 
yeah
that's about how I tend to feel about theories which regard human beings as wholly mechanical. (which is not the same as being wholly material)
it may be that free will and reason are just illusions
but it's kinda hard to actually live that way in practice
 
One thing that annoys me is when people try to say that a theory is probably true because it's based on some fundamentally obvious principle but actually that principle was so not obvious it took centuries to be accepted
 
4:18 PM
yeah
that goes hand in hand with a failure to appreciate how successful previous generations were with the tools they had available
 
qft, susy, sugra, ads-cft, strings, why can't thou be easy
 
we take for granted that the earth revolves around the sun etc.
but that doesn't mean we should scoff at the Ptolemaic model as 'primitive'
what it set out to do, it did very well
 
The obvious thing is that the earth is flat and stationary
And fire hot
The ptolemaic model is 100% correct
It just can't do coordinate changes
 
(there's also the historical fiction of 'epicycles upon epicycles' which has been rather thoroughly debunked. regardless of whether earlier astronomers would have been willing to do that, there simply wasn't the computational power available to do so)
 
You never know
Sometimes you had a weirdo spending his whole life doing one problem
Like that 19th century guy who computed like 150 decimals of π
 
4:23 PM
eh. one weirdo doing that problem requires certain resources
this was pre-logarithms
 
Plus astronomy was like the thing to do back then
As far as science goes
 
yeah. not much difference between it and astrology
 
So I wouldn't be shocked if someone tried to compute orbits with 5 epicycles
 
I don't think you'd get very far that way.
 
Plenty of dead ends in science!
 
4:25 PM
(and regardless the main point is that it was not the historical standard)
 
You won't know 'til you try
Prolly not yeah
I don't think you need much to approximate ellipses?
 
Yeah, but I'd think you'd dead-end after adding one epicycle and seeing how bad it gets
Yeah, you really don't
 
How many Fourier coefficients is that
Two?
 
it's infinitely many: an ellipse is $r(\theta)=a/(1-e\cos\theta)$
but given how close $e$ is to $1$, you can approximate a lot of them as zero
hmm. Something about what I just said doesn't make sense
 
Also back then instruments were mostly like
Looking
 
4:27 PM
yep
 
Hard to get a lot of decimals
 
$r(\theta)=\frac{a(1-e^2)}{1-e\cos\theta}$, oops
and the eccentricity of a circle is zero
For reference, the eccentricity of the earth's orbit is 0.0167
so $r(\theta)\approx A+B\cos\theta$ rather well
mars is more eccentric at e=0.0934, but still small
 
I guess the third factor is like $\propto e^2$
So not much
 
right
 
Though I guess it depends what it translated to as far as angles from earth go
 
4:35 PM
the main problem with the ptolemaic model is that it was a whole bunch of independent approximations
they were all good approximations
but there wasn't the sun as the coordinating object
 
Yeah it's kind of just curve fitting
 
right
 
Which is fine when you only have 6 planets to do
 
hmmm
glasses covering up names now huh
 
You never hear the "Pluto is a planet!" crowd argue for the moon being a planet
Even though it used to be
 
4:37 PM
Pluto is a planet tho
a dwarf planet
can't just be discriminating against dwarfs bruh
 
How many dwarves are at your office
 
none that I know of
but just cus you don't see them doesn't mean they don't exist
 
They're just very small
 
careful now, all social media is monitored at some level you know
 
the thing I find funny is that, while $r(\theta)$ for an ellipse has an infinite number of Fourier coefficients (though most of them are small)
$1/r(\theta)$ has just two
 
4:44 PM
absolutely laugh out loud hilarious
 
That is the curvature
 
yeah
and "funny" in the context of "Ptolemaic's model is just a Fourier approximation"
 
Rovelli also did a paper on why Aristotle's physics was alright
 
Whaa
Wasn't it like velocity based
 
wahhhhhluigi
 
@Blue There is no advantage for me in running a Windows host, but it lets the corporate IT people have a more uniform support environment.
 
'a correct and non-intuitive approximation of Newtonian physics in the suitable domain (motion in fluids)'
 
That paper amuses me on the grounds that there's at least one pilot wave person who views it as justifying an Aristotelian physics rather than a Newtonian one
 
what's a correct approximation?
 
4:51 PM
There is, of course, a huge advantage to using VMs for development (testing code meant for use in heterogeneous environment), but you can do that on any host.
 
Is he saying 'it works in water therefore he's approximately right about everything'?
 
So SE is TF2 now?
 
and while I don't really want to agree with that, I can actually see where they're coming from. (in particular, the absence of the law of inertia in pilot-wave theory)
 
@bolbteppa well he's not wrong!
I mean obvious shortcomings of the theory but still
Pretty hard to come up with science when it doesn't exist
 
"Aristotle never claimed that bodies fall at different speed “if we take away the air”. He was interested in the speed of real bodies falling in our real world, where air or water is present."
from the conclusion of that
(for reference, the pilot-wave paper I had in mind is this one: arxiv.org/abs/0812.4941)
 
rob
5:06 PM
@Semiclassical That's a very useful observation, and its source is a good read.
 
My favorite part about the Rovelli paper is that he quotes Aristotle in the bibliography
 
@enumaris any chance you've heard about FPGAs for NNs? I just got an email about some Xilinx boards and I'm quite curious. Looks like they're priced near the most expensive GPUs, but they seem to outperform them in LeNet digikey.com/en/product-highlight/x/xilinx/…
They don't seem to give anything about how they compare to TPUs, though I imagine they may be a similar thing by a different manufacturer
 
I don't know what FPGAs are, nor do I know what "Xilinx" is
 
lol
my advisor has been forwarding me postdoc opportunities, which I appreciate
 
Xilinx is an FPGA manufacturer :D
 
5:15 PM
my lol isn't directed at him, but at the email he forwarded
 
my knowledge of NNs is mostly on the theory/math side and not the computation side. What I do know is that NNs benefit from GPUs mostly because of the ability to parallelize massive matrix multiplications
 
which talks about a Simons colloboration postdoc, and gives scglass.uchicago.edu/… as the link for that
 
FPGAs are more or less a bunch of gates that you can configure at runtime. I've been curious about them, but haven't run into anything that wouldn't be easier with a microcontroller
 
Field programmable gopher array - a little known rodent based technology
 
...but that's the wrong link. should be "postdoc-on-the-energy-landscape-and-dynamics-of-machine-learning-algorithms", not "the-energy-landscape-and-dynamics-of-machine-learning-algorithms"
 
5:17 PM
woah
giant robocop icon blocking two names
@danielunderwood I have not looked into that level of detail
 
Ahh I figured chances were pretty slim
And you should get yourself a nice hat
 
@JohnRennie Why does your robocop have two mouths side by side?
 
@EmilioPisanty oh hey, hat cometh
 
@Semiclassical yeah, seems so
 
@EmilioPisanty does it?
 
5:28 PM
Oh neat, hat's are here
 
where do I find the hats
 
rob
@enumaris Have you considered looking on the heads?
 
I don't know where to access my hats lol
 
I think if you go to one of the SE sites for the first time, it'll be all Look! Hats!
If not, the snowflake on the menu bar or the hat on your profile
 
the snowflake only shows 2 hats...from two SEs I don't even go to
 
rob
5:36 PM
@enumaris The Winter Bash blog post is featured on the main question pages.
 
@enumaris Click on the snowflake and click on "Winter Bash" at the top
 
I'm surprised I haven't earned a single hat on physics...
 
That'll list all the (non-secret) hats
@enumaris It's only been a few hours since hats became available :P
It's a yearly thing. Try to collect hats. Then they get turned off some time in January (I think the first week)
 
You have to do the things during the hat-giving period
 
oh
 
5:38 PM
And then they all get taken away...I feel like people should get to keep them over each year or something
 
Shame ya don't get to keep hats permanently, but oh well
Still pretty fun
@enumaris There are also secret hats not listed there. There's usually a collaborative effort to share how they're found, in this case here
 
apparently shitposting in a chatroom isn't the criterion to get a hat since I don't have one yet...
2
 
You mean having serious, detailed conversations in the chatroom
 
right...
 
6:12 PM
This is interesting, but the background is definitely something codejacked.com/know-your-keyboard-bang-splat-whack
 
In Cambridge in the early 80s the exclamation mark was referred to as pling. The article makes no mention of this.
 
That's definitely one I've never heard of. I actually found that while looking up why they were called bangs
 
@danielunderwood ...what background?
 
@danielunderwood Commonwealth Hackish apparently ...
 
@ACuriousMind does it not flicker for you? It does weird things on both my monitors
 
6:25 PM
@danielunderwood Hm, only very slightly on my main monitor. Much more noticable on my second, though, now that I try it.
 
@danielunderwood is it the grey sides that flicker on your monitor?
 
rob
@JohnRennie The article leaves off "sharp" as a name for #, which goes back a lot further than the 1980s. I question the completeness of their scholarship.
 
Ahh it looks like it's barely noticeable on my laptop. And yeah the grey sides flicker when scrolling
 
A refresh rate effect is my guess
I also get a flicker when scrolling. I'd guess it's some form of aliasing.
 
@JohnRennie those metasyntatic variables in particular are something
Though I don't know that I can forgive "beeta" and "zeeta"
attoparsec is my new favorite unit of length though
 
6:30 PM
pronouncing them like that is fine. giving them as variables...not so much
 
@rob apparently sharp is a different symbol i.e. the one used in musical notation. The # symbol and the sharp sign are different things.
My goodness, the things you learn on the Internet. One day I hope to learn something useful.
 
Well that was for pronunciation. I've actually never heard them pronounced like that. The closest I've heard would be pheye vs phee
@JohnRennie C# would like to have a word
 
C-hashtag? :P
 
I'm still waiting for its successor $C\flat$
 
In music, sharp, dièse (from French), or diesis (from Greek) means higher in pitch. More specifically, in musical notation, sharp means "higher in pitch by one semitone (half step)". Sharp is the opposite of flat, which is a lowering of pitch. There is an associated sharp symbol which resembles "#", ♯, which may be found in key signatures or as an accidental. For instance, the music below has a key signature with three sharps (indicating either A major or F♯ minor, the relative minor) and the note, A♯, has a sharp accidental. Moreover, under twelve-tone equal temperament, B♯, for instance, sounds...
 
rob
6:32 PM
@danielunderwood D-natural, surely.
Or C-double-sharp, which normal computer users would type as Cx
 
> So called in the name of the Microsoft programming languages C#, J# and F#. Microsoft says, "It's not the 'hash' (or pound) symbol as most people believe. It's actually supposed to be the musical sharp symbol. However, because the sharp symbol is not present on the standard keyboard, it's easier to type the hash ('#') symbol. The name of the language is, of course, pronounced 'see sharp'."
 
$C^\sharp$ is obviously a dual vector
 
y can't i do images right
@JohnRennie So C\sharp
 
Sometimes images from wikipedia show up like that for whatever reason
 
rob
6:35 PM
@JohnRennie Before we had Unicode and started giving semantic names to every character, I would think the difference between ♯ and # would be about like the difference between a and a.
 
there's a method to it, but I can never remember
 
So uh, cxx is really like "C quadruple sharp"?
 
rob
@Semiclassical SVGs are special.
 
@rob I have to confess that before this conversation I had no idea there was any difference.
I now consider myself better informed, though sadly no wiser :-)
Aha, it worked
 
6:38 PM
@danielunderwood @Semiclassical The link is not actually a link to an image, it's a link to the Wikipedia's media viewer displaying the image. The actual SVG image is:
 
I wish I was around during the early days of computers. It always sounds like an interesting time
 
rob
@danielunderwood No, that would be the name of C𝄪𝄪
Though why the unicode double-sharp symbol is superscripted (on my machine at least) is a little mysterious.
 
Yeah same on my machine
Though I usually run away when unicode and why occur in the same phrase
 
@danielunderwood for me the most interesting time was during the first few years of Windows NT's existence. Say from NT3.1 up to 3.51. It totally revolutionised scientific computing. It was the first time you could run seriously big models on a PC without having to install unix, and back in those days unix was a pretty hostile place.
 
rob
@danielunderwood I was going to say more, but instead I will follow this advice.
 
6:46 PM
DEC released a CPU called the Alpha that ran regular Windows NT v3.5 and v3.51, and at the time it's power was astonishing. Literally astonishing - people were astonished how fast it was for numerical work. Sadly it's now a footnote in history.
 
robocop is upside down
 
Was code pretty platform-dependent back then? Like did you write specifically for NT or a certain CPU? Or was it like today where you could have ifdef'd bits to handle that? And how did code get distributed?
 
7:19 PM
Is there name for code that is awfully ugly but gets the job done?
 
7:31 PM
Yes. "Unmaintainable code". :P
 
rob
8:04 PM
@Lozansky Some such programs are stored in "write-only memory."
 
@Lozansky As opposed to what, code that's pretty but doesn't work?
:-P
 
I call that Kardashian code
 
For a moment I thought that John Rennie had discovered a secret hat
 
8:20 PM
@Lozansky oh interesting
 
 
1 hour later…
9:20 PM
so what's this vote of no confidence news I'm hearing regarding May?
 
0
Q: Is this a Schr\"{o}dinger cat state?

AndreaPacoConsider the following Bose Hubbard Hamiltonian which describes a Bose Einstein condensate in a two-well potential: $$ H= -T(a_L^\dagger a_R + a_L a_R^\dagger ) + \frac{U}{2}(n_L^2+n_R^2-n_L-n_R) $$ The total number of atoms in the system is $N=n_L+n_R$ and represents a conserved quantity. Sup...

that's a first
winter bash at its best
 
9:36 PM
he didn't mention how it's related to Schroedinger's cat
 
@enumaris Schr\"{o}dinger's cat is the $(\LaTeX)$-preimage of Schrödinger's cat
 
$\LaTeX$
hmmm
 
I just had a debate on a hypothetical decision with my would-be team during a job interview. What an interesting and scary thing to put in an interview
 
a "hypothetical decision"?
 
Uhh what should be done in a hypothetical situation...at least I think it was a hypothetical situation
 
9:39 PM
I just had an interview today morning and it seems like the guys want to use named entity recognition but were doing purely dictionary based approaches...he kept asking me how to made NER work without a dictionary XD
 
@EmilioPisanty You mean it is a preimage :P
 
@ACuriousMind yes
I was struggling to find that language
or rather, I was trying to think of a scathing comment about LaTeX
but I couldn't find one that was scathing enough
 
"the" would imply a bijection between LaTeX sources and output...
 
@ACuriousMind yes, I know
 
Why scathing? Don't you think " is a fine name for a command? :P
 
9:41 PM
@ACuriousMind I'm not in particularly good terms with LaTeX at the moment
I recently had to compute (by hand) a bibtex preimage
I can tell you, it was not fun
 
oh lord, why would you have to do that?
 
and, on top, it was full of Rzążewski's and the like
which I needed to work out how to typeset correctly
fun fact: the auto-generated bibtex from Phys Rev will produce the incorrect Polish diacritics
 
That fact is not fun
 
I know
it has a bunch of \ifmmode cruft, too
but once you clear that away, you get
 
@ACuriousMind you don't consider manually figuring out how to typeset Polish diacritics fun?
Are you even human?
 
9:47 PM
$\Huge \text{Rza\c{}\.zewski}$
huh
MathJax doesn't like the diacritics?
 
You'd have to ask him yourself
 
anyways
Phys Rev will export into the middle one
 
@EmilioPisanty I suspect MathJax doesn't actually call the standard text processing for stuff inside \text
 
which doesn't even have the "ogonek" attached to the a
the correct choice, as it turns out, is the third row
but
I want back all the hours of my life spent figuring that out
@ACuriousMind PI originally typeset the bibliography with a mixture of bibtex and manual imports from other documents, and the original bibtex was either missing / too much trouble to find / horrible anyways
so, yeah, I have compiled over the past ~three weeks, by hand, the 230+ references in our bib file
 
@EmilioPisanty Odd, I wonder why it does that. I mean, some generator choking on diacritics seems reasonable, but outputting the wrong diacritic at the wrong place seems like an oddly specific error
 
9:57 PM
@ACuriousMind I can't rule out being mistaken
it might potentially be the \c{}
though it makes no sense to have it after the a
from what I've been able to gather, it's meant to connect to the stem and not the round
but then again I just looked at some pre-computers Phys Revs and they connect to the middle
though on the other side wikipedia is quite unambiguous about it
The ogonek (Polish: [ɔˈɡɔnɛk], "little tail", the diminutive of ogon; Lithuanian: nosinė, "nasal") is a diacritic hook placed under the lower right corner of a vowel in the Latin alphabet used in several European languages, and directly under a vowel in several Native American languages. It is also placed on the lower right corner of consonants in some Latin transcriptions of various indigenous languages of the Caucasus Mountains. An ogonek can also be attached to the top of a vowel in Old Norse-Icelandic to show length or vowel affection. For example, in Old Norse, ǫ represents the Old Norwegian...
 
Oh, if it is indeed a Polish ogonek, it seems that \k{a} is correct. But I wonder how the BibTeX generators got the idea that it was something else. Do they run some sort of OCR on the text to generate the characters they then need to turn into TeX, and the OCR misidentified the ogonek as a shifted cedille?
 
I mean, heck
> Difference between the correct placement of the ogonek in European languages (left) and Native American languages (right)
@ACuriousMind ¯\ _(ツ)_/¯
I'd quite like to know
partly to deliver a sharp smack to the back of the head of whoever wrote that awful bibtex
and yes, it's a Polish ogonek
 
question for you computer nerds out there
 
plug it in
 
if I learn C, will writing C++ code be very easy? And vice-versa.
I don't know the actual difference between all the C varieties...C, C++, C#...
 
10:10 PM
@enumaris Those are not C "varieties". They are honest-to-god different languages.
 
Ah...
So they are all named variants on C because...
 
Although C++ is largely compatible with C in that a certain portion of C code will also compile as C++
 
I would say that it wouldn't hurt. C is largely a subset of C++, but they generally have different ways of getting things done. C# is off on its own
 
I read this:
"When compared to C++, C is a subset of C++.

C++ is a superset of C. C++ can run most of C code while C cannot run C++ code."
 
10:12 PM
It is not the case that all valid C programs are valid C++ programs, therefore there is no subset/superset relation.
 
hmmm
C# is off on its own...
sounds like I should learn more C++
 
That's why I said largely. They're different, but many thing from C will work in C++
Though they're getting even more different with more recent versions of C++. As far as I've heard, it's generally bad to use pointers in C++ now if it's not one of the std::*_ptr
 
@enumaris The question is why do you want to learn any of the C[IncrementOperator] languages to begin with?
 
@enumaris I'd say if you get pretty good at programming in any (reasonably mainstream) language, you would find it not too hard to switch to any other language of a similar general design. That being said, it's debatable just how much C and C++ are of "similar general design" - there are some patterns in C++ that you can't really use in C, mostly related to object-oriented programming, and there are patterns in C that you wouldn't generally use in C++.
 
@ACuriousMind for my own improvement
thx for the info :D
 
10:17 PM
@enumaris Sure, but what are you aiming to improve?
 
I dunno
 
I think C is interesting for learning about data structures and memory management, but those are going to be taken care of in pretty much any modern language
 
at this point I'm just looking from a very far lens lol
 
Do you want to improve your understanding of what a pain it is to program "close to the metal", dealing with memory management manually? Sure, go learn C! Do you want to learn a language that as different as possible from what you already know? Don't look at the boring Cs, go Haskell, Lisp, Erlang, etc...
 
I played around with Erlang a bit a few years ago. It was like my world was upside down
 
10:20 PM
Do you want to see an object system bolted on to the manual memory management, with a Turing complete sublanguage where you'll write boilerplate code that generates more tedious boilerplate code for you? Go for C++! (don't @ me :P )
2
 
hmmm
 
Isn't the preprocessor Turing complete as well or something like that? Or does the preprocessor handle templates?
 
well I was told (watching some tutorial videos on Java) that Java and C++ are the two "production level powerhouse" languages upon which you can build like really any kind of program you'd want to...so I guess that's why I was looking into them
like Python is awesome for data science and ML and everything I do currently, but I dunno about using Python to create say...a game engine...for example...
not that I ever plan on writing my own game engine lol
 
@enumaris Why not? What do you feel is lacking in Python?
 
I don't feel anything is lacking. I just hear this.
 
10:23 PM
(I'm not saying there's nothing lacking, but your answer would go a long way to clarifying what language you're looking for)
 
Fun fact: When I wanted to write a game engine, I started out thinking that I should use C because people said C++ was slower
 
I have played around with making executable ".exe" programs in python, but only just for fun basically
so I don't know the python ecosystem supporting that kind of stuff either
almost all my code is written to be run by a python interpreter, not built into an executable .exe file or something
 
@enumaris It sure does, cf. stackoverflow.com/q/5458048/3929857
I feel the largest thing deterring many people from writing large productive programs in Python is their fear of runtime errors
 
@ACuriousMind right, I did see that at some point, and I tried out py2exe before. I'm just saying my knowledge of the area is very basic. So when you ask me about what I feel is lacking in python, I can't really give a clear answer lol.
Mostly I just hear things about how you should use C++ or Java to do the "hardcore software engineering" stuff
 
The compiler will not prevent you from reaching a state where you try to call a method on an object that doesn't have that method. And if reaching that state is rare, you'll only see the crash in production.
But then again, the C compiler does not prevent you from dereferencing the null pointer or producing segfaults
 
10:28 PM
I don't believe being in an exe is going to matter. I think those tools just package up a python interpreter or something. Being written in C# or Java ends up similarly, but is run in a different way. C++ and such will indeed compile down into a binary
 
If you want protection from runtime errors, use Ada or Haskell :P
 
I don't have a "want" at this point lol
just some vague sense that I could learn some more
 
Oh, the amount of stuff you could learn is huge. I'm just skeptical that it is C you're looking for :P
 
Possible
 
@ACuriousMind what makes them better at runtime?
 
10:33 PM
@ACuriousMind $\rm C\cap C{{+}{+}} \lesssim C$?
you grinch
 
@danielunderwood Haskell has a type system that simply makes it rather hard to compile code that will throw an error - most errors can be detected already at compilation because the robust type inference means it knows what types a variable can actually be in a lot more cases than in other languages.
 
@ACuriousMind presumably the amount of stuff @enumaris could learn is infinite. So it doesn't necessarily make sense to try to reduce it.
 
@EmilioPisanty I'd be very amazed if humans had managed to produce infinite programming knowledge in their finite time playing at it.
 
hmmm
 
10:39 PM
what we gonna do when we run out of helium tho?
 
probably by that time we would have access to helium mining in at least the moon I think...?
 
@enumaris The balloon and funny voices industry is going to go out of business and our society will collapse.
 
the horror
 
10:53 PM
@enumaris FWIW I don't buy that.
 
@DavidZ which part? The argument that C++ and Java are the two big languages for "hardcore software engineering" stuff?
(e.g. building whole applications, software, etc...)
 
Yeah, or more the implication that other languages are not capable of supporting those sorts of systems.
I mean, C++ and Java and other mainstream languages each have particular strengths and weaknesses that make them suitable for certain tasks, and maybe many of the tasks for which commercial demand exists are such that C++ or Java are well suited to implement them, but I don't think there's anything about those two languages that makes them overall better than another one like Python in the absence of knowledge about the task.
 
I see
 
I would hate to do data processing in Java or C++.
And similarly, UNIX utilities or Perl are my tools of choice for text processing.
 
11:17 PM
sounds good :D
@DavidZ btw I have not heard back from soundhound yet, you guys' reply speed has slowed down significantly since you applied! :P
 
@ACuriousMind I don't know how similar it is, but I feel like Rust may have something like that. My initial thought when using it was "oh boy, my segfaults have turned into compiler errors"
 
oo boy segfaults
 
I always found it entertaining to kill programs by sending that signal
 
kill program 66
execute program 66
execute ~= kill?
 
11:39 PM
You knew something is very hard when you find work is more interesting and hopeful than it
kill 666
execute 666
execute ~= kill
 
hmmm...trying to get spacy to work on my colleague's computer and his language model is failing to install...odd...
 
11:52 PM
oh, it was cus the pre-release was not installing
whomp
the stable release installed correctly
whatevz
 
I never thought that execute can both mean the same thing and opposite thing as kill...that's interesting
Also if any of you were to refer to array[0], would you call it the first element of an array or zeroth element?
 
interchangeably
 
> 4K HDR Smart LED UHD TV w/ AI
what have we come to?
 
I also call array[1] the first element of the array even in languages that index from 0
 
11:59 PM
you will have to know from context whether I'm referring to array[0] or array[1] in those instances
 
00:00 - 16:0016:00 - 00:00

« first day (2960 days earlier)      last day (1955 days later) »