joshuahhh.com
joshuahhh.com
t-shirt size: medium
173 posts
964 followers
117 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
To be fair, I think AI autocomplete is especially incompatible with pairing. (I use it when working solo and I disable it while pairing.)
comment in response to
post
I'm fascinated by "construction equipment as symbol of terrifying future that must be averted"
comment in response to
post
"raises the question" or "prompts the question" are fine. leave my obscure idiom meaning alone.
comment in response to
post
I kinda feel like CS conferences are a bummer situation
comment in response to
post
Why is it the last altchi?
comment in response to
post
I agree; "bakers" indicates a sort of q-analog
comment in response to
post
it's a procedurally defined name that selects a different silly con- word each time
comment in response to
post
the golden gate!
comment in response to
post
i'm still gonna call it "concomitant rhombi" thnx 🙏
comment in response to
post
make that 101
comment in response to
post
I will buy this t-shirt. if this t-shirt does not exist yet you are leaving money on the table @bretthamil.bsky.social
comment in response to
post
I love them I love them I love them
comment in response to
post
consummate rhombi
comment in response to
post
i appreciate the question! you chop the tofu up into little cubes, freeze it (see www.bonappetit.com/story/freeze...) and then air-fry it with a bit of oil & salt. pan-frying would probably work too but idk
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
oh ok I thought maybe someone would ask but this is cool too
comment in response to
post
I know how to do this to tofu
comment in response to
post
But I like dragging
comment in response to
post
maybe this calls for an OS-level "tray" you can drag things into and out of?
(this too has a real-world equivalent: note the cute "coffee cup shelf" next to the door of All City Coffee in this unattractive photo I found online.)
comment in response to
post
The question to me (as an dilettante) has always been "why do we need different levels?" That is, why not get rid of turnstiles and just talk about propositions? (Is this "Hilbert-style"?)
comment in response to
post
sadly just a made-up thing someone put on Wikipedia one time :(
comment in response to
post
That's wonderful. Stupendous feeling of "seeing the whole".
I had the ISBN of "Watch What I Do" on my clipboard manager from earlier today, so I threw it in. It's right next to "The Little Prover"! And just around the corner from "Software Abstractions"! What a cozy little neighborhood.
comment in response to
post
Thanks so much for sharing this – I went today and had a blast. 🙏
comment in response to
post
like it looks like it wants to be friends with me
comment in response to
post
!!! what makes it so friendly?
comment in response to
post
wow; I don't think I've ever seen a drawing program where waiting is part of the process!
(I think "durational" may be the fancy word for this.)
comment in response to
post
hate to say it but I think I might have some face-related advantages here
comment in response to
post
is this a good score whats everyone else gettin
comment in response to
post
living in separate microwave bubbles
comment in response to
post
avalanches better think twice after seeing this
comment in response to
post
it's extremely good.
thing I'm getting hung up on rn: why the focus on 100% legit x86 assembly? I am on-board for "assembly-like prog may be good for newbs", but why REAL assembly, with 'some instruction are locked to registers' nonsense, etc?
@mrogalski.eu – can you clarify motivation here?
comment in response to
post
caveat lector: it's possible all my points here are irrelevant / unhelpful to the thread of discussion that's actually happening. I just felt like being an avatar for "formal equivalence means very little; I mean everything's a Turing machine after all"
comment in response to
post
off the dome:
- it's easy to throw data into a spreadsheet, with a grid providing meaningful-but-flexible structure
- spreadsheets show live data by default
- spreadsheet cells are roughly uniform size, limiting how complex the interface of a cell can be; nodes can naturally become mini-apps
etc
comment in response to
post
sure! I should have said "dataflow nodes-and-wires has the same evaluation semantics as (trad) spreadsheets".
& I didn't mean any particular formal sense of "substrate"; just meant "the stuff that makes nodes-and-wires special is different from the stuff that makes spreadsheets special". so, yes. ❤️
comment in response to
post
evaluation semantics in both cases are reactive dataflow, but evaluation semantics are only part of what defines a computational substrate.
comment in response to
post
For N=3, we have 3-1=2 binary decisions to make, resulting in 2^2=4 total comps. For a different N, we would end up with 2^(N-1) different comps. That's the final answer to the warm-up Q.
So! What combinatorial picture can you use for the original Q? And what shift in perspective counts it?
comment in response to
post
How many ways can we break stars up into groups like this? Well, four – those ones. But what about in general?
Here's the next shift of perspective: Instead of seeing groups, see bars BETWEEN groups. There are two places bars can be placed. In each place, we have a decision: put a bar there or not?
comment in response to
post
It's helpful to move away from numbers and towards a more directly combinatorial picture. Think of 3 as three stars:
★ ★ ★
What's a composition in this new picture? Just a way of breaking the stars up into groups. We get:
★|★|★ = 1+1+1
★|★ ★ = 1+2
★ ★|★ = 2+1
★ ★ ★ = 3
comment in response to
post
The hint is to rework the question into one about counting – make it "combinatorial".
As an example / warm up, instead of doing the multiply-and-add thing to compositions, let's just try to count them.
How many ways are there to make numbers add up to a given number N? Say, N=3?
comment in response to
post
(thanks to aimrewind.com for the cascading style sheets)