fnrslvr

24 ms·

1.
by fnrslvr 4y ago
I followed Start Bodyweight for a while, seemed pretty good. The emphasis on being able to manipulate one's own bodyweight appealed to me, and end goals of the progressions like one-armed pushups/chinups/etc are pretty cool.
2.
by fnrslvr 4y ago
I didn't interpret you as saying that the F-35B should be cancelled. I'm more bringing context that it's not solely a US Marines toy, and not solely a baby-carrier plane. I don't think that adding catobar support for mod
3.
by fnrslvr 4y ago
It's about a combination of stealth and the sensor/avionics package -- the ability to detect and identify SAM radar systems and launchers, and chart a path which minimizes likelihood of detection, aided by the aircraft's low
4.
by fnrslvr 4y ago
There are 12 catobar carriers in existence at the moment, 11 operated by the US Navy. (Soon to be 13 with the Chinese Fujian carrier entering the mix.) Maybe the UK would've gotten their act together and fitted catobar on the Queen Eli
5.
by fnrslvr 4y ago
I don't think you understand the kinds (and volumes) of SAM firepower a Soviet hangover can leave you with. Ukrainian skies are the most dangerous skies in the world right now, for both sides.
6.
by fnrslvr 4y ago
Are you claiming that the Pentagon is secretly acquiring F-35 airframes for far higher prices than other JSF program partners or foreign sales customers, in order to cook the books?
7.
by fnrslvr 4y ago
These are some weird takes. Saying that the F-35 is built for ground strike roles doesn't mean that there's no need for ground forces or infantry, or that other capabilities won't ever be more suitable for certain strike oper
8.
by fnrslvr 4y ago
> We keep saying missiles are great and dogfighting is over, and we keep being proven wrong. My understanding is that the "dogfighting is over" rhetoric stopped being proven wrong during the Iran-Iraq war, when Iraqi fighters s
9.
by fnrslvr 4y ago
> Pretty much all buyers of the F-35 have been offered different sorts of kick-back deals, where they get to produce parts of the plane or handle maintenance, so the deal props up the national arms industry in some way or another. What?
10.
by fnrslvr 4y ago
You might want to track down the information they release from multinational training exercises like Red Flag. Reportedly the F-35 has put in multiple dominant showings at Red Flag since its debut. I'm not sure how complete the informa
11.
by fnrslvr 4y ago
Small, high-GDP countries like the nordics are also likely to rear a small amount of the high-quality pilots required for operating fighter jets. Maximizing those pilots by putting them in exquisite, high-end aircraft, with strong interoper
12.
by fnrslvr 4y ago
Yeah, this. Smaller countries can easily wind up holding the bag with less-widely adopted defence procurements, and without a wider community of users investing in the platform and its parts ecosystem it can become a sustainment nightmare.
13.
by fnrslvr 4y ago
The four colour theorem does generalize to infinite planar graphs, in the sense that if an infinite graph can be embedded in the plane without overlaps, then a four-colouring is possible. It's a straightforward consequence of the compa
14.
by fnrslvr 4y ago
Don't worry, they probably just want to fill out requirements documents with "Agile" written on them.
15.
by fnrslvr 5y ago
Really the best usage of all the computation models we're discussing here is using them in mathematical reasoning. If you're looking to "create real working programs," then a better basis is probably going to be some c
16.
by fnrslvr 5y ago
This whole debate is always so bewildering. Programming paradigm fanboys get into heated arguments about which model is the "best" one, but actual computer science research uses myriad different models of computation, usually ende
17.
by fnrslvr 5y ago
When you mentioned infinite structures, I thought you'd bring up the idea that our goal to automate often pits us against problems defined as collections of infinitary instances. I don't think the potential infinity of tapes and
18.
by fnrslvr 5y ago
I agree with the sentiment, but I've actually come to consider "computer science" to be a great name for our field. Turing's universal machine is the original dependency inversion of our field: instead of specifically st
19.
by fnrslvr 6y ago
I think the point being made here, is that it is difficult to gain recognition for counterfactuals.
20.
by fnrslvr 6y ago
> Even in the much cleaner world of mathematics, basically all interesting work is done within the realm of formally provable statements. More-or-less this. I'm going to take this as an opportunity to drop one of my favourite quote
21.
by fnrslvr 6y ago
I was expecting a book about mathematical modelling of games from the Street Fighter fighting game series.
22.
by fnrslvr 6y ago
I wrote a basic response, but it got longer than I thought it would and HN complained about it being too long, so here's a pastebin: https://pastebin.com/zTJA4bJh
23.
by fnrslvr 6y ago
If the time bound is being put in place in the hopes of being able to automatically analyze the behaviour of the code, then no. I singled out "outputting 0" on every input because it's among the simplest possible specs you co
24.
by fnrslvr 6y ago
> call the time bound N Call the time bound c|x|^k, where x is the input and c and k are constants. I see what point you're making, and I agree that you get yourself a nice, merely coNP-complete problem if you're willing to c
25.
by fnrslvr 6y ago
This is kinda part of the promise of regular expressions, context-free grammars, relational algebra, map-reduce and other stream/pipeline-based programming models, and maybe to some extent P-complete things like convex optimizers and p
26.
by fnrslvr 6y ago
This might get you away from the literal statement of Rice's theorem, but we tend to ask questions about our programs' behaviour across all possible inputs, and these questions tend to remain impossible to solve in general. For ex
27.
by fnrslvr 6y ago
> (hypothetically, bugs aside) This is the problem. Interesting computing is some impossibly complex (undecidable, in fact) subset of all computing, that you try to get inside of via the practice of software engineering. Turing's th
28.
by fnrslvr 6y ago
I don't think this discussion thread is giving the writer's concern enough credit. Universality on its own obviously doesn't allow the instance to take over its host, but it can enable the bulk of the malicious payload to
29.
by fnrslvr 7y ago
Fair. The topic is often taught to students without broaching the topic of Turing machines. I think we agree that as a matter of actually building the topic of NP-completeness, nailing down a concrete model of computation for the verifiers
30.
by fnrslvr 7y ago
I don't think you need to reach for Turing machines to specify P or NP, but I think it's fair to say that Turing machines* play a key role in establishing NP-completeness. (And other completeness phenomena.) Computational hardness

More ›