Rampoina

I don't understand how this is not the obvious answer. Maybe people are equating open source with an open development model?

https://flarerpg.org/

≤ "expands" in J to <: Definitely not more verbose.

J uses . and : as modifiers to a base operator to create a pretty big set of primitives. See https://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/NuVoc

I should have used the full sentence. Why does it stop being "notation as a tool of thought" See comments like this one https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20732924

APLers hate the successors, because "notation is tool for thought" and ASCII is a poor representation.

I'm perplexed by this one. I'll concede that the APL symbols are prettier but why does it magically stop being a notation just because you use combinations of ASCII symbols. Especially when many APL symbols are composed of units themselves.

⍲ vs *: One is 'notation' because it has the two units stacked on top of each other and the other is not because they are stacked horizontally?

You can do that with a traditional notation music program like Musescore. You just need to learn music notation.

Pretty cool thanks, this one covers interactivity https://invidio.us/watch?v=CzK2SazvCxM (it's a little sprite editor)

Do you know if GNU APL offers the facilities to do stuff like that?

I would also like to know if there's examples of more real time applications in APL. Any GUI programming? Interactive simulations? etc.

I was a bit confused with it being called a consonant.

After some research, although I had a flawed understanding of vowels and consonants, I think it's classified as a semivowel.

Rectangles too, any four corners played at once. It's because the sensors are horizontal and vertical stripes of velostat, so every individual stripe can only sense pressure, the location is gather by combining the information of the overlapping stripes.

from their webpage [1]:

If 3 note pads are pressed that are 3 corners of a rectangle, presses to a note pad that is the 4th corner of that rectangle will be ignored.

[1] http://www.rogerlinndesign.com/ls-specs.html

Damn it, you're going to make me spend 240€ on this :D Is it velocity sensitive? How is the feel of the keys?

I have the opposite opinion (I also own a linnstrument).

I come from a piano background, and as someone that kind of struggles to improvise in keys with more accidentals I was attracted to the idea of an isomorphic layout.

After playing a lot with the isomorphic layout I've come to a conclusion that it comes at a cost (it has its advantages and disadvantages compared to the traditional piano layout)

To be isomorphic the layout has to have multiple representations of a single note, with this comes the fact that you don't really have to learn one shape for every chord, you have to learn multiple ones if you play complex polyphonic music and want comfortable fingerings (the linnstrument also has this problem that you can't play 4 notes in a square which comes at the most unexpected times specially between the two hands).

So the comparison would be to learn every key thoroughly vs learning every (useful) alternative for every chord.

In my opinion there's nothing intuitive about the y axis having a greater intervalic distance than the x axis, specifically I would have this problem when going down in a melody to the previous "string" the distance to that note is way different than it would be on the same string.

To be fair I think the only intuitive layout is a linear one (like a single string, or the haken continuum)

If anything, having played with an isomorphic instrument has encouraged me to learn the piano layout more deeply.

Having said that, the linnstrument itself is a decent product all and all (although I have some beefs with it but I don't want to turn this comment into a review) and it makes sense that you like the layout having more experience with stringed instrumments, but I would say that's familiarity not intuitiveness.

See http://annafeit.de/pianotext/ for another interesting take on this idea.

What is Deepmind's interest in not releasing the source code and weights for the neural networks?

I'm excited about their work but it seems that it would be much better for everyone if they just released their work openly.

Well, thank you for the uncalled-for insult!

Welp, just as I got hired to work at Red Hat. :(

I played the Discworld MUD a few years ago, and I actually found it underwhelming in some aspects.

I came from having played a few IF (interactive fiction) games where the puzzling element is important. I was expecting to find the same kind of elements in Discworld and was disappointed.

For example there is a quest where you have to make the rat king go away from a house(or something like that); being a mage I found out there was a spell to kill vermin, so I leveled it up a lot and cast it on the rat king, it did kill it and it exploded into tiny bugs, but it didn't complete the quest.

The magic system seemed very cool and like it could have been used as a mechanic to solve quests and puzzles, instead that gave me the impression it was only meant for combat. (or making stuff for other players)

Another issue is how stupid the NPC's were (compared to IF games), I recall that a street urchin or other npc's couldn't even give you directions to streets. (directly asking like 'where is street').

Having said that I liked how huge the game felt, and the events that could happen with the interaction of the other players. For example dying in a river, being resurrected, and having them dive to get my stuff. Or following around a weird mage only to enter a portal he created and get eaten by crocodiles (oops)

It seems there's so much underdeveloped potential with these kind of games, if someone knows of a MUD that has more IF inspired mechanics with more emphasis on the puzzling I'd be happy to know.

Thanks! some of these do look quite good. I wish I had the opportunity to try them out, so far I've just been able to try experiments on the Vive, not finished games.

But I can list a dozen incredibly good gaming experiences in VR off the top of my head. I rarely touch non-VR games now.

Could you actually do it please?

I played it for a while, it was fun but a bit frustrating having to fight the people trying to turn god mode off.

I can read this formula and understand it, I just need a little bit more time than the mathematicians. I'm pretty sure that was the case for most computer scientists there.

How is the single atom isolated? And how can you make sure there's only one?

Is this supposed to be sarcasm? Do you use a steno keyboard?

Thanks for posting this, It's very cool.

I don't like the first one very much, it resembles me improvising some times; randomly repeating patterns without any direction or structure and without going anywhere.

The second one is better, it has some good moments, but still has the same problem, it lacks general structure, and just seems to go from pattern to pattern.

I like the third one, it may help that the form is very formulaic. Some rhythms that it makes are weird but in a good interesting way. The structure is better and seems to be going somewhere but unfortunately it doesn't finish.

EDIT: Conclusion, if the program could incorporate structure in some way it would make for passable music, but I would say the humans are still safe ;)

This is evil

Can I ask what exactly do you find is a "horrible mess", and why is it bad for beginners to start with Blender? Also, when did you try it?, because it changes considerably fast (to the better).

I started learning CG with 3d Studio Max, and then with Lightwave finally followed by Blender. I haven't tried Maya, but I don't really see that much of a difference between those programs and Blender. (Sure the interface may be a bit worse because it is mostly keyboard driven, but once you get used to it it's very fast)

I know someone who started learning CG with Blender, and even tried other programs and found them worse than Blender so in my anecdotal experience it's good for beginners.

If the issue is that it lacks some features from professional programs, that shouldn't really be a problem for someone learning. If what you're arguing is that the better way to start learning is with the software that is used professionally I don't really see why that should be the case.

You're comparing some specialized packages with Blender, which is not really fair, the comparison there should be Maya vs Blender.

Zbrush for example is an amazing program, and Blender even has a similar sculpting mode although it is obviously much more limited because it's not a specialized program.

It's a cool project but again I'm not sure what I would gain from the modes, counts and motions. Right now I use Awesome WM which is really similar to howm without changing modes, and without using the motions and counts (but I don't really find myself wanting to use counts to move windows).

I think they shouldn't use modifiers at all, ideally you would enter the mode with MODIFIER+modekey and then press the normal keys: q2c. I don't know if that's possible with your current program but that's what I meant.

I really love vim keybindings and I use them wherever I can (firefox with vimperator, the shell etc), however I'm not sure that modes make sense on a window manager. In my opininon it doesn't have that many operations, and they don't differ that much from each other, I think that having to think which mode you're on and which one you need to use would only introduce friction and slow you down (in this case the normal mode is not that normal, i switch windows as often or more than I create new ones or switch layouts).

Another thing is that the operators, motions, and objects each need its modifier keys; in my opinion that just misses the point of having modes and one of the strong points of the vim keybindings. Because of that it was really hard for me to understand how to use Howm: the first time around I skipped the configuration part and went directly to the examples, and you don't mention anywhere there that q4c (for example) is really Alt_L+q, Alt_L+4, Alt_L+c. When I read the configuration part and the configuration file, to see each keybinding I got it, but still it took some googling to figure out that I needed to use xmodmap to know which keys are the MODXMASK.

EDIT: It seems you do mention that the operators, motions and objects need a modifier key, I missed it. Still, I think that it would be clearer if the keys to press were explicitly indicated (like Alt_L+q, Alt_L+4, Alt_L+c)

I use awesome WM and I didn't need to customize any of the keyboard shortcuts; it uses the windows key as the modifier key and as far as I know no other program uses it.

Also I don't get how the Windows 8.1 window management comes even close to the 2 programs you mentioned (Ratpoison and Awesome WM). With both of those (or any other tiling manager) you can do much more than just maximize and snap a window to the sides. (you have virtual workspaces, automatic tiling, better switching, etc)