mcnamaratw

4 ms·

1.
by mcnamaratw 1y ago
Of course there were analog 'computers' but vacuum tubes were also used to realize digital computers in the early days. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum-tube_computer
2.
by mcnamaratw 1y ago
Maybe we agree, maybe we disagree. You got specific works and authors? That would help a lot.
3.
by mcnamaratw 1y ago
Don’t be a d**k. Lots of literary fiction is perfectly readable for normal humans. Lots of what isn’t accessible is just not that enjoyable to anybody. I’m happy to debate … but only using specific examples. Authors and titles. The example
4.
by mcnamaratw 1y ago
“This is fundamental misunderstanding of literature” No it is not. It is a central and vital part of literature. Wound you like to have a friendly debate, each of us using quotations from any fiction writers we like?
5.
by mcnamaratw 1y ago
Great example. It is absolutely a matter of taste. Sadly noise music doesn’t support a lot of full-time jobs compared to writing songs more or less the way the Beatles did. Which was all new and stuff, but not completely foreign to what Ste
6.
by mcnamaratw 1y ago
Then why is Kurt Vonnegut still so popular?
7.
by mcnamaratw 1y ago
What is that stuff? Is Kurt Vonnegut that stuff? Folks, downvoting the comment above is literally destroying what you claim to support.
8.
by mcnamaratw 1y ago
Of course that’s punishing, though 75% may be closer than 90%. But I don’t buy it as the root cause. Where is the new Susanna Kaysen or Lionel Shriver or Laurie Moore or Barbara Kingsolver?
9.
by mcnamaratw 1y ago
But that’s new. Until ca 1970-2000, people read literary fiction because it was high quality, much more than because it was unrelateable. O’Hara, Salinger, and Franzen were not writing about the outer edges of human experience.
10.
by mcnamaratw 1y ago
That’s the old standby argument, and it may be right. I can’t really read John Barth or George Saunders the way I can read Richard Russo or Lionel Shriver or Kurt Vonnegut or Michael Chabon or Barbara Kingsolver. For me the experimental wr
11.
by mcnamaratw 1y ago
It’s really not accurate to say that a photon has no position at all. How would a photodiode work? You have to be careful with this stuff. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/492711/whats-the...
12.
by mcnamaratw 1y ago
Not all of that is true. Who played with the un-updated CD version?
13.
by mcnamaratw 1y ago
Sure. But inventing something better is not reinventing the wheel. Those are two completely different activities.
14.
by mcnamaratw 1y ago
I’m sorry but you’re mistaken. The wheel was invented thousands of years ago.
15.
by mcnamaratw 1y ago
Yeah. Ok. You want the fine print? Reinvent the wheel … for your own learning and fun. Or invent a different kind of wheel. Don’t reinvent the wheel on a tight deadline while the rest of the team does useful work. Don’t reinvent the wheel a
16.
by mcnamaratw 1y ago
No, dB are always power gain.
17.
by mcnamaratw 2y ago
Kind of agree. But pervasive downvoting by folks who don’t understand the subject is a form of forum rot. The risk is only that we expose the rot. Not such a terrible risk, because either the owners notice and fix the problem, or the forum
18.
by mcnamaratw 2y ago
Dale Gribble
19.
by mcnamaratw 2y ago
The economic boom isn’t helping everyone.
20.
by mcnamaratw 2y ago
The book is from basically the “experimental music” school of electronic music. The idea was/is that music will be completely transmuted by electronics and computers, leaving traditional music behind. Here “traditional music” means alm
21.
by mcnamaratw 2y ago
Thanks. Agreed, that could have been a good point to mention that Laplace transforms are more or less the same as Heaviside’s method. As I read it, the article leaves the opposite impression instead.
22.
by mcnamaratw 2y ago
Great. Possibly missed the opportunity to point out that Heaviside’s method is more or less the same as Laplace transforms.
23.
by mcnamaratw 2y ago
Good point, your suppliers need to get singular too. And sales. And management or investors.
24.
by mcnamaratw 2y ago
Just on the naive math level, a simple growing exponential has no singularity at any finite time. I’m sure Vinge knows that but some of those dudes don’t seem to. EDIT Rest in peace. Fire Upon the Deep was great.
25.
by mcnamaratw 2y ago
It’s cool that you’re a native speaker, but the typical HN commenter is at a much higher level of proficiency than that. Irony notice. This comment contains irony.
26.
by mcnamaratw 2y ago
Nobody knows anything better than HN, ever.
27.
by mcnamaratw 2y ago
It’s easy to forget this, but what we’re calling AI is chat bots.
28.
by mcnamaratw 3y ago
Why? MIT could just rein these people in, and the reputational damage would stop right away.
29.
by mcnamaratw 3y ago
In 20 years, expect daily stand-up Programming Motherfucker meetings.
30.
by mcnamaratw 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh–Jeans_law

More ›