Koshkin

27 ms·

361.
by Koshkin 3y ago
Number of developers: 2
362.
The Vala Programming Language(vala.dev)
2 points by Koshkin 3y ago|0 comments
363.
by Koshkin 3y ago
But Microsoft and Intel (and Dell) may already be in cahoots on this. So, eventually you may have to give up on those as well.
364.
by Koshkin 3y ago
But the hardware is already here! https://www.macobserver.com/tips/deep-dive/what-is-apple-neu...
365.
ChrysaLisp GUI Demo [video](youtube.com)
2 points by Koshkin 3y ago|0 comments
366.
Google Pauses Ability to Generate Images of People(engadget.com)
34 points by Koshkin 3y ago|7 comments
367.
by Koshkin 3y ago
For those who would like to experience an AS/400: https://pub400.com/
368.
by Koshkin 3y ago
Incidentally, πρῶτον, too, is a word in Ancient Greek.
369.
by Koshkin 3y ago
To be fair, "Unix philosophy" was originated by said engineers themselves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy Speaking of emacs, it was created outside Unix, to be later reincarnated by Stallman as
370.
by Koshkin 3y ago
Right. Why would one care about principles.
371.
by Koshkin 3y ago
> I am an engineer with software to run and deadlines to meet. Sure, but UNIX, with its minimalist philosophy, was - luckily for us! - not created under that slogan. With respect to quality, this slogan has always been the one driving
372.
by Koshkin 3y ago
> Does that mean that the positron is somehow "part" of the proton? A photon turns into a (virtual) electron-positron pair. Does it mean that the photon consists of these particles?
373.
by Koshkin 3y ago
Slightly more details on the delay line: https://nzeldes.com/HOC/DelayLine.htm
374.
by Koshkin 3y ago
Followed by Multics, written in PL/I
375.
by Koshkin 3y ago
K&R C was almost perfect, with its simplicity, minimalist elegance, and power. It would have been perfect if it was not for the addition of “->” which was unnecessary; it was done perhaps to simplify the compiler.
376.
by Koshkin 3y ago
Give me my L-shaped Enter key back please!
377.
by Koshkin 3y ago
A bit on a tangent, I have been always curious as to how much of the modern theoretical physics is just math. That is, how little print space the standard treatment of physical theory could be compressed into if all the purely mathematical
378.
by Koshkin 3y ago
Because its focus is mostly on measures defined on "non-physical" sets, such as various functional spaces (with applications to integrating differential equations, for instance).
379.
by Koshkin 3y ago
Unfortunately, even though it is said to be a "generalization" of these things, mathematical measure theory has nothing to do with physical units of measure or dimensional analysis.
380.
by Koshkin 3y ago
Damn you, now I can’t unget it.
381.
by Koshkin 3y ago
Also, since the whole universe appears to shrink into a thin line, am I in fact moving now in all directions at once?
382.
by Koshkin 3y ago
Curiously, general-relativistic effects needed to be accounted for as well. Quoting Wikipedia, GPS “must account for the gravitational redshift in its timing system, and physicists have analyzed timing data from the GPS to confirm other tes
383.
by Koshkin 3y ago
In short, a reference frame moving at c is pretty much a logical absurdity, because by definition it would mean having massive objects move at c as well.
384.
by Koshkin 3y ago
I have tried to use mspaint alone for creating documents complete with text and figures. (It’s not hard to compile a personal library of various symbols used in mathematics and elsewhere.) Works out pretty well, and the feeling of not being
385.
One Glass of Wine or Beer Daily May Cause Brain to Shrink (2022)(usatoday.com)
27 points by Koshkin 3y ago|15 comments
386.
by Koshkin 3y ago
That depends on the unit of measure. We know that the charge of the electron is exactly 1, with the appropriately chosen unit.
387.
by Koshkin 3y ago
> Current moves far faster than electrons. Current is the movement of charges. It cannot “move” faster than said charges. (Or, perhaps, you meant the electomotive force that makes the electrons move along the wire, then sure, that
388.
by Koshkin 3y ago
Read after the comma: > it just works, but...
389.
by Koshkin 3y ago
Not as "impressive" as TCC, I'd say. Why? TCC has its own backend, and it has the preprocessor built in. (But QBE is indeed impressive.)
390.
by Koshkin 3y ago
There’s also the “suckless” sta.li

More ›