4 ms·

Omg you're right: http://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=20+nanodijkstra http://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=20+nanodijkstra

by tajen 11y ago

ak39 11y ago
Probably originally attributed to Alan Kay: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Edsger_W._Dijkstra https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Edsger_W._Dijkstra Quote: I found an amusing quote from Alan Kay on Dijkstra, from his 1997 OOPSLA keynote: 'I don't know how many of you have ever met Dijkstra, but you probably know that arrogance in computer science is measured in nano-Dijkstras.' [audience laughter][1]. --24.184.131.16 20:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xoyw8LHGtzk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xoyw8LHGtzk
- spacecowboy_lon 11y ago
  I used to work at BT with a (very good) DBA who's first boss was Dijkstra
myhf 11y ago
Hmm, for some reason it won't let me convert Stephen Wolfram to nanoDijkstras.
- jhdevos 11y ago
  Integer overflow?
  - gjm11 11y ago
    Unlikely; Wolfram Alpha is based on Mathematica, which has arbitrary-precision integers, and I don't think one wolfram can be more than about 10^12 nano-dijkstras. (If I put "1 wolfram" into Alpha then it tells me about Stephen Wolfram. If I put "2 wolfram" into Alpha it tells me about tungsten. I guess that when you ask it for "1 whatever", it first simplifies it to "whatever", and then you can have variable quantities of tungsten but not of Stephen Wolfram.)
    - nnq 11y ago
      Wolfram is also another name for the chemical element "tungsten" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfram_(element) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfram_(element) ("2 wolfram" probably means "give me the second meaning of 'wolfram'"). Mathematica/WolframAlpha is probably not smart enough to figure out unambiguously how much mass or energy could be in one nano-dijkstra, which it would need for such a conversion. On the other hand, referring to "1 wolfram", some would argue that one wolfram could greatly exceed 10^12 nano-dijkstras... Dijkstra was actually quite smart and from reading his essays, I'd consider him quite humble, not arrogant at all. He had that "old-noble-European cold-joking-seriousness" and most Americans are known to be incapable of understanding this tone of communication.

Omg you're right: http://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=20+nanodijkstra http://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=20+nanodijkstra

by tajen 11y ago

Omg you're right: http://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=20+nanodijkstra http://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=20+nanodijkstra

ak39 11y ago

Probably originally attributed to Alan Kay: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Edsger_W._Dijkstra https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Edsger_W._Dijkstra Quote: I found an amusing quote from Alan Kay on Dijkstra, from his 1997 OOPSLA keynote: 'I don't know how many of you have ever met Dijkstra, but you probably know that arrogance in computer science is measured in nano-Dijkstras.' [audience laughter][1]. --24.184.131.16 20:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xoyw8LHGtzk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xoyw8LHGtzk

spacecowboy_lon 11y ago
I used to work at BT with a (very good) DBA who's first boss was Dijkstra

myhf 11y ago

Hmm, for some reason it won't let me convert Stephen Wolfram to nanoDijkstras.

jhdevos 11y ago
Integer overflow?
- gjm11 11y ago
  Unlikely; Wolfram Alpha is based on Mathematica, which has arbitrary-precision integers, and I don't think one wolfram can be more than about 10^12 nano-dijkstras. (If I put "1 wolfram" into Alpha then it tells me about Stephen Wolfram. If I put "2 wolfram" into Alpha it tells me about tungsten. I guess that when you ask it for "1 whatever", it first simplifies it to "whatever", and then you can have variable quantities of tungsten but not of Stephen Wolfram.)
  - nnq 11y ago
    Wolfram is also another name for the chemical element "tungsten" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfram_(element) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfram_(element) ("2 wolfram" probably means "give me the second meaning of 'wolfram'"). Mathematica/WolframAlpha is probably not smart enough to figure out unambiguously how much mass or energy could be in one nano-dijkstra, which it would need for such a conversion. On the other hand, referring to "1 wolfram", some would argue that one wolfram could greatly exceed 10^12 nano-dijkstras... Dijkstra was actually quite smart and from reading his essays, I'd consider him quite humble, not arrogant at all. He had that "old-noble-European cold-joking-seriousness" and most Americans are known to be incapable of understanding this tone of communication.