> Regardless of what I do, the days I decide to wash my car, it ALWAYS rains the day after
Undeniable universal truth. I sometimes find myself making plans based on the fact that the most annoying possible outcome is also the most likely one.
Bikewear in particular is a bit hilarious. I'm 5'9", 150lb, so a bit smaller than you, but I have significantly more muscle in my upper body than the typical serious cyclist build. In my experience, the more high-end the bike clothes, the more they expect you to be shaped like a TDF rider, which is to say literally zero upper body mass.
So I have almost the opposite problem from you, where an M is usually reasonable for me on the bottom, but _comically_ tight on top. Even an L is usually way too tight through the chest and biceps for me, but now not long enough in the arms.
I just live with it, because whatever, I don't mind the top being a little tight, but it is frustrating.
Really cool project. Any plans to port the API to other languages? My use case for something like this is to represent types that are used on either side of FFI (Rust <--> Some other language). Pairing this with a code generator for the shared types would be great. That's something flatbuffers/capnproto do well that isn't just pure speed.
I mean that's just obviously, objectively, not true. If you're born with 12-inch legs you are _not_ going to be an elite marathon runner. Heck, even if you're born with average genetics, you're not going to be an elite runner.
What would make us think the same thing isn't true of mental activities? Obviously there's a lot more noise in the signal, and it's a lot more subjective, but there's pretty much 0% chance that if anyone just "tries hard enough" they can become a genius.
That's super duper cool, but, it doesn't refute my statement. If what you're saying is "you can do anything you want at a level that will challenge you". Yeah, sure, but not at a level comparable to the best of the best.
+1 to this copy being a little bit over-the-top. This is neat, but, as you pointed out at the end of the day this is still computationally equivalent to normal 2d cellular automata. I suspect (not taking the time to prove this) that it's equal in a fairly obvious way, which is that you could just replace "links" with 8*<num link states> additional sub-states per cell. The only real difference is just in how it's visualized.
Seems like maybe not the only instance of self-aggrandizement in this blog... the sidebar shows posts about things like the quantum mechanics of consciousness other such quackery.
Wow. One of the links is titled "Clarifying the Hierarchy of Information-Derived Gravitational Tensors in Consciousness Field Theory". The References section has 4 entries, all written by the author of this blog.
Actually - on that particular topic - you might want to read the articles and the math before forming an opinion - start from information geometry and fisher information metrics of information processing - which is what that particular line of thought is all about...Everything on that particular line of exploration is built up from fisher information where "consciousness" is defined as a high complexity information processing geometry and so its measurable. Because its defined as a measurable physical process, not as a magical quality, it's a mathematical argument. But of course that would require reading, and sufficient knowledge to understand it.
The observation that other CA can be equivalent is a weak critique at best, this CA may be a nice compact way of describing types of CA that have interesting properties. It is not terribly interesting that it may be subsumed by some other CA. It may be some interesting unstudied subset.
For instance the Game of Life is a subset of 2-d binary state CA, the rule only takes the totals of neighboring cells, and so is a subset of those CAs with rules that care about specific patterns of neighbors.
You probably do. Many people just never notice that. It's not about typing or reading fast either, it's just about how it feels. Typing into something with shitty latency feels like dragging my fingernails across a chalkboard.
It's the same with high dpi monitors. Some people (me included) are driven absolutely insane by the font rendering on low density monitors, and other people don't even notice a difference.
Honestly, consider yourself blessed. One less thing in the world to annoy you.
Yes, I can perceive that latency, if I am actively looking for it. No, it has absolutely no effect whatsoever on my ability to work. The latency is far, far below what could possibly affect neural feedback loops, even on the slowest editors. And it doesn’t bother me in the slightest.
Low-dpi font rendering also isn’t an issue for me, unless it is so bad as to be illegible (which no modern system is).
When I say "any language" when interviewing candidates, I mean it. I would be stoked if someone busted out J in an interview.
Of course, my team also writes SDKs in a bunch of different languages, so it makes sense. Even if that weren't the case though, I'd be stoked. To your point though, early in your career, I get your viewpoint. It's hard out there to get a foot in the door and you have to seize opportunities.
Would be a massive win that's fairly narrow in scope. More generally, being able to send arbitrary LSP commands to the server and see the response, even if it's just a text dump, would be super useful.
Love the project! I would say the only thing stopping me from moving over full time is a Git porcelain, but I'm sure you guys know that. Keep up the great work!
Undeniable universal truth. I sometimes find myself making plans based on the fact that the most annoying possible outcome is also the most likely one.
reply