3 ms·

The entertainment value asymptotically approaches zero for me when your updates are this sporadic, verbose, and vapid. I'll assume you are done dancing, given

The entertainment value asymptotically approaches zero for me when your updates are this sporadic, verbose, and vapid. I'll assume you are done dancing, given the continued weakening of your performance. But if I am mistaken, and you do abandon your current trajectory for something new and interesting, perhaps I'll come watch again. It's a shame, because I did so enjoy your early work. Seeing someone adopt such an arrogant position, only to flail about for this long in a spectacular display of nothing at all... well schadenfreude is the word I would choose for it. Don't give up.

mannykannot 11y ago
How sweet of you! No sooner did I mention how enjoyable it was to see your impotent apoplexy return, than you let loose another volley (I hope this doesn't come across as churlish, but I have to say that while the impotence is unparalleled, the apoplexy is not quite at the level it reached before you realized you were signalling your frustration at having your every argument refuted.) On the subject of arguments, I see that this is the first time in I-can't-be-bothered-to-count that you have you have not tried to insinuate (without an actual argument) that the points I made in my preceding post are invalid (IIRC, the last time you tried an actual argument, it was the fiasco in which you ended up attempting to pass off 'slightly' as a conversational synonym for 'exponential'.) Could it be that you have finally realized what Mark Twain was going on about in his well-known aphorism about keeping quiet or removing doubt? Or, after having taken another turn around the bowl (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9610430 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9610430), will you once again repeat the same old insinuations that failed before? My money is on the latter. If you are unsure where to start, may I suggest (once again) that you attempt an actual explanation (as opposed to either merely insinuating that there is an explanation to be found somewhere, or attempting to rewrite your original claims as something completely different) as to why you think Eslaught's explanation does not refute your original claim about the complexity of all stack-frame-based explanations?

mannykannot 11y ago

How sweet of you! No sooner did I mention how enjoyable it was to see your impotent apoplexy return, than you let loose another volley (I hope this doesn't come across as churlish, but I have to say that while the impotence is unparalleled, the apoplexy is not quite at the level it reached before you realized you were signalling your frustration at having your every argument refuted.) On the subject of arguments, I see that this is the first time in I-can't-be-bothered-to-count that you have you have not tried to insinuate (without an actual argument) that the points I made in my preceding post are invalid (IIRC, the last time you tried an actual argument, it was the fiasco in which you ended up attempting to pass off 'slightly' as a conversational synonym for 'exponential'.) Could it be that you have finally realized what Mark Twain was going on about in his well-known aphorism about keeping quiet or removing doubt? Or, after having taken another turn around the bowl (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9610430 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9610430), will you once again repeat the same old insinuations that failed before? My money is on the latter. If you are unsure where to start, may I suggest (once again) that you attempt an actual explanation (as opposed to either merely insinuating that there is an explanation to be found somewhere, or attempting to rewrite your original claims as something completely different) as to why you think Eslaught's explanation does not refute your original claim about the complexity of all stack-frame-based explanations?