timeforcomputer

Hyperion is awesome. Each story could be its own novella but especially the priest's tale. I also loved the consul's tale. I haven't read the rest yet because I am unsure how the story will go without that structure as I wasn't too invested in the space politics, but I hear it is good. Also if you haven't read, The Terror by Dan Simmons is also great and strikes historical/horror like I feel hyperion does scifi/horror

I still have to read Wind and Truth but I'm still waiting for the same paperback edition I have the other books in haha. Great series

I really enjoyed Fezzick and Inigo's chapters. And the Zoo of Death! As I remember, the framing narrative was quite different, something about a screenwriter with some glaring personal issues IIRC. Worth reading if you love the movie, definitely.

How is the latency for drawing? I am going to start doing this, but it makes me think, it would be nice to have a way to disable full refresh while drawing, and doing tablet-side drawing over the current VNC frame while the stream is paused, and asynchronously forwarding the input which will hopefully recreate the same drawing path on the server.

You can also use EXWM in Xephyr, so you can have an emacs window with its own controlled windows instead of replacing the whole DE/window-manager. I suppose this doesn't work with multiple frames though.

I have been experimenting with xdotool windowmap/windowunmap and override_redirect (and maybe LD_PRELOAD?) to try get something like EXWM to work without creating another X server, by capturing windows. I'm doing this in vim though.

By the way, neovim has an apparently working EXWM-like plugin, NXWM/nwm: https://github.com/altermo/nwm

I love it because I have glare/doubling around words. Adding some visual noise can mask my own eye problems, and adding some visual effects with the glowbar and jittering if I feel like it, can really make it easier to focus for some reason.

Almost the same emoticon logo too.

ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ Bear vs. ʕ·ᴥ·ʔ Build EAR

The compilation database tool (https://github.com/rizsotto/Bear), is extremely helpful. It got CCLS/clangd working for me over multiple in-house build systems at a vfx studio.

It also is super helpful for debugging. I have used it a lot alongside a script which converts a compile_commands.json to a sequence of commands, so I can edit them individually without fiddling with the build system, and then once fixed (such as adding a flag to one TU) try to find the way to do that in the build system.

I've heard good things about sclerals and am planning to get them. Small triple images in the left eye and triple in the right eye with a major image further away, like 3 lines on my computer screen away. It doesn't sound nearly as bad as the many images but good to hear sclerals work with worse cases!

Thanks for the link to tmuxinator, I had heard of it but never learned what it does. I think I'd like something like this. But I think this is a case of tmux providing a platform, I think the core idea of tmuxinator could be implemented outside of tmux, so tmux in that regard is basically an implementation detail.

Then it is a pragmatic decision, using tmux you get to use the ecosystem of things like tmuxinator which explicitly target tmux to get a known number of terminal features like splits. What I learn from the OP, is that there are technical reasons that tmux is not a "good design" - like Kovid's comments on how it constrains innovation in terminal designs - which might lead someone to consider, what actually does tmux do and could my workflow be implemented otherwise?

It might be a bunch of unixy hacks and tricks (as another commenter here said) but it can work. I'd imagine recreating something like tmuxinator would be hard though, but it could also be interesting, like having arbitrary GUI programs configured to appear in "splits" using tiling integrated seamlessly within the terminals. But yeah, if the workflow is already set up and serviceable and supported with a community, using tmux, then I'd just keep using it.

VFX software development, repairing and modifying pipelines for artists, at a company with a large internal tool infrastructure like Weta, ILM, Pixar, is my target job

"Because we raise the trigger and only two carrying noodles, and only two can announce in this network but their excess cites their examine this places where the apparatus of military power torches the ground"

He makes an intriguing point.

I have felt similar, wanting to learn physics sims. I have had to learn over time to separate domains of knowledge like physics from programming tools used to ~manifest them. Especially starting with gamedev, initially it felt like there should be a natural programming idiomatic way to set up each of the major simulations like rigid bodies, cloth, springs, fluids, so the first thought I had was these sims will be naturally encoded in the language, like a fluid sim being somehow setting up a grid, then choosing some update rules per timestep. But really it is modelling a problem as real mathematics and physics, then mapping this to a language/toolset which perhaps can't naturally express it idiomatically.

There are a few algorithms like some cloth sims based on particle positions and springs, which can be coded easily, but that was misleading to me when trying to improve, I had to dig a lot more into physics and numerical analysis then mapping the problem to code, which can end up clunky and with a lot of magic numbers.

As latexr said you can disable watch history. This means there is no home page (even when it should have known my interests, my home page was awful so this isn't so bad). You don't get watch-progress memory on videos, which is simple to adjust to. Recommended are less targeted and I get a lot of the typical ragey youtube stuff but it is mostly half relevant. I no longer watch any shorts which I kept clicking just to "see how bad they are" until it became a habit. And the UI keeps pushing it... If youtube makes the no-watch-history method not work, I'm just deleting the app and waiting until I'm bothered to configure revanced.

I love this book so much. The literate programming style I think inspired from Knuth's cweb, great writing, beautiful high-quality physical book worth buying but also free access to knowledge. The literate-programming style means you are almost immediately applying theory to a practical system, I keep having to take breaks to learn outside math/physics though, but it is self-contained in principle I think.

I think the geo URI scheme might work if you have an exact location for the book.

Yay Ben Rady. He has a great podcast with Matt Godbolt (who made Compiler Explorer) called Two's Complement.

I just realised in the above comment I was making a mistake in an analogy to shortest path optimal substructure. In shortest path, starting with an optimal solution, "subproblems" have optimal solutions. This is not true starting from a non-optimal path, although length-1 subpaths are optimal. But still not sure of a particular way to phrase optimal substructure for code size. Sorry for the confusion!

Thanks, it looks like I had forgotten how dynamic programming works, e.g. constructing from possibly all subproblem solutions rather than just some way of breaking into some disjoint union. In this case I guess for code optimization a "subproblem" needs to be defined. I'm not sure if just breaking the code into chunks works as I was imagining. Maybe optimal substructure applies to some graph-like model of computation but not the naive assumption I made on how this would work.

Yes I was surprised at that sentence because I think (considering theoretical properties of code size are the same as instruction count) that the main initial reason compiler optimization is non-trivial is because these kinds of global optimizations are possible, like your loop example.

Also I am really enjoying your article, still reading it with wikipedia open on the side haha.

In the article he says "Now, let's say you split the function in two parts and you find their minimums independently", so I am trying to think of what that means. I was thinking something like splitting "func() { ins1; ins2; }" into "ins1func() { ins1; } ins2func() { ins2; } func() { ins1func(); ins2func() }", but I agree this is an unwieldy/unrealistic example, all the register context would need to be passed in, stack memory addressing etc., and this changes instruction counts non-trivially.

So I guess I don't need to think too much of the functionness of splitting up a code-block, I suppose this example contradiction would also apply and more cleanly if just thinking of the compiler considering blocks of code individually e.g. in a greedy algorithm.

(Actually reading the intro again I think I overcomplicated this and he actually does mean just splitting into code blocks. My mistake)

Why does optimal substructure work for code size? Couldn't you take a compiled non-minimal function and break each instruction into a function call (with some assumptions about the ISA maybe), then assuming each single-instruction function is minimal by itself, infer the entirety is minimal, contradicting?

The specific article is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_graphics_.... I can understand the "multiple issues" section here, this seems super-technical in a certain way in comparison to what I usually see on Wikipedia (although wk does get very technical on very specific isolated things in e.g. math, usually non-theory tech pages are a summary), but I still found it motivating to dig into Linux. I wouldn't be surprised if it was removed.

I love wikipedia and I read to procrastinate by reading the articles for everything I am interested in so I have found quite a lot of factually incorrect information or statements of fact which are really philosophical opinions. However usually these problems coexist with a certain change in writing style (loss of formatting, grammatical errors, random capitalizations, change of tone, etc.). I find I haven't found many problems with content written in the usual "wikipedia" style, so I assume the hardcore wk editors who enforce this style care a lot about factual accuracy. However I don't read enough outside of wikipedia so I wouldn't know if everything is correct...

(actually now that I think about, maybe I am more likely to agree with things in the wikipedia style. But I think the style errors and factual errors are at least a bit correlated.)

Also not to mention that he has written many great textbooks on top of his research work. I would recommend anyone in an intro or second mostly-methods-based DE course to read his Ordinary Differential Equations. He doesn't entirely avoid useful methods (as I recall) but the approach was extremely different to what I had seen before, but so natural (pointing at geometry and topology, immediately discussing vector fields and a nice notation for flows in the beginning chapter).

Nice! I want to do something similar and map my understanding of Linux. I find some diagrams on Wikipedia fascinating (example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Linux_Graphics_Stack_20..., but more to do with the user library ecosystem rather than kernel and program runtime). These diagrams make me want to learn about each part and be able to comprehend in principle what is happening on my machine. Eventually...

Arnold is very influential especially in "Russian math" pedagogy/philosophy, which could be contrasted a bit with "French math" where Bourbaki was very influential. I think anyone interested enough to read the Bourbaki article might be interested in reading about him since his wikipedia page has a few references pointing to interesting discussions about Bourbaki's influence. I should have mentioned a little details in the original comment, sorry!

At a second-hand bookstore I bought a biography of Simone Weil and have overheard some conversations about her work, and it looks like her work is very popular. I said I was interested in the biography because of her brother Andre the famous number theorist, and they didn't know she had a brother. Different worlds combined :)

As a counterpoint, my favourite mathematician: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Arnold

I love tig. I have an ad-hoc fork of it adding a new window which displays a preview of the selected file in the diff prelude section of the diff window, so I don't have to navigate through the single window. It is very helpful to browse the files in a diff easily. (https://github.com/LucasPayne/tig) I swear I will clean up the fork soon, I just implemented it in whatever way worked.

I do something similar to what you are doing with Kakoune daemon mode, but I work in the shell within a vim context. I have bound "e" in diff/stage views of tig to send a message to the current vim to open a new tab for that file at that line.

I have not tried magit yet but am going to now to at least extract some great ideas from it and somehow get it in my current workflow.

Ah yup I agree, I think I am wrong to make the comparison between Google and ChatGPT here. I am not nearly as concerned about the problems with Google as with potential problems with ChatGPT (or whatever the most popular equivalent is in the future). I do think an AI service will be as important as Google in the future. I think the negative externalities this time might not be trivial considering what ChatGPT promises the user (basic Google search still is in general just a way to find some webpages or immediate info, while an AI homepage is a way to create things or communicate with others...).

Thanks for the pointer to Fourier optics! I mentioned Fourier because it is something I still don't "get" even after studying and using these methods.

I am still learning, but I have so far only applied inverse methods to systems where the physics is well-defined and the model already accepted as "real". For example, CT scanner algorithms which model the photon counters and attenuation through matter (although this can get complicated...), with the output being data in well-defined format (like the distribution of matter). I do see people using inverse solvers or AI to derive something which isn't an "image" but a model of the physics (does that make sense?). The extreme version of this which I have seen once before, is a paper using AI to extract algebraic forms of PDEs from videos of fluids. To what extent does the AI user have to understand/"pre-model" the physics, and to what extent does the AI generate understanding in some way? Apologies if this is misinformed as I am still outside the research community, and don't very actively read papers.

Currently I am trying to learn background to understand electromagnetic properties of materials with an interest to apply this to computer graphics. I eventually want to learn what processes are currently done for extracting material properties from scans, etc., along the lines of the classic gonioreflectometers. In this space, from the papers I look at, it looks like AI is unavoidable and I am sure an extremely useful tool but I definitely want to be careful not to get lost in misunderstanding.