smosher

32 ms·

271.
by smosher 15y ago
Oh hey, apparently the order of the results is maintained, according to Larry Wall. I'm not sure if that's new, or I misread something. (I was sure I read something about the result order being undefined.) So the tiny Perl 6 version does no
272.
by smosher 15y ago
Ah. Perl 6 has been making strides lately. There's a bit of a refactor in the wings which should make it much more processor and memory efficient. If it had the performance (and a package in Debian sources), I would be using it in productio
273.
by smosher 15y ago
(>>.) doesn't seem to require parallelization in the implementation, at all...it just allows it and requires code to be parallel safe That's pretty much what I said. I'd be curious to see what the actual smallest Perl 6 implement
274.
by smosher 15y ago
I was hoping you'd see the irony in my reply. I didn't mean any offense. (Thanks for illustrating my point though.)
275.
by smosher 15y ago
That's not right. True random sources make no guarantees, and nothing says they need to be exhaustive.
276.
by smosher 15y ago
Note to future historians: In the age before commercialized internet access humans found humor in absurdism , irony , satire and sometimes even sarcasm . Today these forms are no longer considered humorous but malicious and offensive,
277.
by smosher 15y ago
Also, the Perl 6 one-liner is sort of laughably cute . I'm not sure I believe it would actually work I don't think any current implementation supports auto-parallelization of hyperops. Regardless, hyper is really only spec'd to remove the
278.
by smosher 15y ago
My first thought was "are you serious?" But then I remembered the Win8-on-ARM promise. I'm not sure I'd want to use a desktop (to me 'desktop' means 'workstation') like this, but it's interesting for sure. The more I think about it, the mor
279.
by smosher 15y ago
I was curious about the mention of the zombie before because this line didn't seem right: That brain simulation is a zombie. The man in the room does not speak Chinese. I'm fairly certain that qualia--whatever it is--is not a necessary qu
280.
by smosher 15y ago
You're saying that ... No, you're putting words in my mouth. I'm arguing the scientific facts of the matter, and I believe I did a good job of making my personal beliefs and opinions separately. It's especially important to note that my t
281.
by smosher 15y ago
The article compared the processing power of the human brain to 1 transistor per neuron. No idea where you get the strawman from, since that's exactly what I was commenting on in that paragraph.
282.
by smosher 15y ago
Yeah, I totally get that. I'm just assuming that the average vim user is going to prefer things to work vim-native over anything else.
283.
by smosher 15y ago
The collapsing sounds like a valid complaint. The rest falls on deaf ears for this vim user. I would expect most vim users to feel the same since those complaints are either considered features or the common barrier to entry that vim has an
284.
by smosher 15y ago
Sadly the metaphor doesn't hold. I heard somewhere that something like 19 petaflops is roughly equivalent of the processing power required. I don't recall exactly from whose arse that number managed egress but I suspect it's more on the mar
285.
by smosher 15y ago
I'm having a hard time with your argument. Some things jump out: The only data that could ever be provided would be a very limited set, namely, to the external behaviors. - This isn't true at all. We slice open brains to find out how they
286.
by smosher 15y ago
Not this again. Why does this get dug up repeatedly? I've seen this show up off and on every year for the past 10 years. It doesn't work everywhere, it's not expected to work robustly anywhere , even if your server supports it not all clie
287.
by smosher 15y ago
I feel the same way. What's present in TFA isn't enough to convince me of anything. What I'm concerned about is this: how does this work with quantum weirdness such as post-selection and entanglement? If I had answers to those questions I m
288.
by smosher 15y ago
It does take a bit of work to add a new task, but it's important work. Without it the problem is difficult to understand and the correctness of solutions is impossible to verify. However, if you don't want to write the boilerplate, task sug
289.
by smosher 15y ago
You didn't miss as much as others seem to think. Nothing here changes the fact that it subverts the object model and overuse causes kudzu.
290.
by smosher 15y ago
It seems reasonable to me. What's the issue?
291.
by smosher 15y ago
Amen, brother. Most of the comments where I feel like I said something insightful or genuinely useful end up with a score of 5 or 6. The others are higher or lower (depending on timing.) I don't have any 50+ comments though, I haven't poste
292.
by smosher 15y ago
Are they really that bad? The biggest problem I have with them is that most of the comments are from people like yourself, a disinterested individual complaining about the submission. That's not a judgment on you by the way, I've complain
293.
by smosher 15y ago
I trust my judgment better with the lack of quantified information on how the group as a whole has behaved. Perhaps I'm just projecting but I trust the judgment of others better under the same circumstances.
294.
by smosher 15y ago
I was relieved when the scores disappeared. The less unnecessary information the better, I find. Besides, I think score visibility just promotes groupthink. I don't use score sheets with my friends. Moderation becomes necessary in a pseudon
295.
by smosher 15y ago
I think that apology was a mistake. Gibson got it right when he said the future is harder to predict now. I think that covers any 'mistakes' he might have made. If he'd known the future in fact he wouldn't have been able to write such good
296.
by smosher 15y ago
That's interesting. I wonder how easy (or necessary) it would be to apply this to a self-training (self-motivated) network.
297.
by smosher 15y ago
That depends. I don't have a good answer because I don't personally think Go qualifies. Rhetorically: is that really all you want out of it? Does Go really do it well enough in your opinion? The thing about compiling to native code is int
298.
by smosher 15y ago
I see too many other languages defeating Go at its strengths. The only one that survives is its fast compilation, but others are not so slow to make that a deciding factor. If you happen to like/need its particular combination of strengths
299.
by smosher 15y ago
Yup. I stopped following Go when that happened. Not intentionally but adding yet more things (invisible ones, no less) that I need to be wary of is not what I consider convenience in a syntax. Other more awkward languages became less inconv
300.
by smosher 15y ago
It's not about that. Explicitly so. Did you read the thread you're responding to?

More ›