onan_barbarian

I think the 4-color teaches us that sometimes software has to be shit. A lot of people held out for an elegant proof but what they got was auto-generated spaghetti. I cannot think of a better demonstration of the fact that sometimes you just have to write a lot of boring code and solve all the cases than the fact that an important theorem in mathematics was solved this way.

SKX = Skylake-X = Skylake Xeon, as distinct from SKL, which is the "client" die. The most important distinction is that SKX has AVX 512 and SKL does not.

So... the big factor muddying the waters for AA is that it is, in many cases a state-sanctioned option where "anonymous" behavior modification (have you checked in with your sponsor?) takes on the force of law. It's possible to have a substantial variation in your treatment by the courts as a result of whether heavily AA-associated folks around you say that you are getting with the program or whether you are still in 'denial' (it's not just a river in Egypt, fnarr fnarr). I have met people whose continued freedom as non-violators of probation or parole more or less depends on the say-so of various quasi-governmental types as to whether they are paying lip service to Bill Wilson.

I'm going to say that I'm fine with the idea that if people find the rooms work for them, great. However, the idea that a program that doesn't show any real statistical effectiveness as compared to secular programs should be adopted by the state is creepy and weird and fucked up, and no amount of bullshit dodges ("your higher power can be a cat, or a doorknob") makes this less fucked up.

Absolutely agreed. As I posted elsewhere on the thread these insane custom licenses guarantee that you can't use this code for anything serious. Even if you wanted to work on a project as a hobbyist, you can't redistribute this code. So if this guy gets hit by a bus or decides that he doesn't want to release this code any more, tough.

What's more is that as this HN post conveys, there are plenty of libraries like this, many being developed under much less bizarre licenses.

The thing that I find particularly bizarre is that I have a lot of understanding for people who craft custom licenses to make money to support a project (or do dual-license stuff). But this just seems self-defeating. I honestly just stopped reading at LICENSE.

There's also a ton of frisky legal bullshit:

"(11) Should any provision of this license agreement be or become invalid, this shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions. Any invalid provision shall be replaced by a valid provision which corresponds to the meaning and purpose of the invalid provision."

Ah yes, the old "if my clause is legal garbage, magically replace it by what I meant and enforce that".

Vc also looks rather more conventional in terms of license and distribution method (3-clause BSD and github respectively).

Custom licenses are a headache and I always wonder whether the academics who promulgate them wonder why no-one uses their software.

Amazing levels of ignorance here. Even this has become difficult and awkward thanks to an effort to close the door after Eduardo Saverin et al bolted. Hacker News seems to be a reliable place for people to holding forth on situations that they don't understand; it's no wonder that the brains trust here gets regularly crucified on n-gate.

This is incredibly stupid. A US citizen abroad gets very little additional protection from the "army and international protection" that the other citizens of the country in which they are generally resident get; i.e. a US citizen in Germany or Japan gets a lot and a US citizen resident in, say, China or Indonesia gets nothing. This is one of the dumbest arguments I have ever heard for this kind of wacky double taxation and I wonder at the persistence of its appearance.

I'm going to guess that the logic behind your 'relatively attainable goal' here is 90% dependent on the fact that far more people can aspire to be a footballer than a professor, due to the general requirement for a PhD. I would think the pool of people aspiring to be footballers is orders of magnitude larger.

They've also been weeding themselves out from doing something that's pretty much exactly the task ("playing football at a slightly younger age against somewhat less good players") for a while - while future-professor-types may well have been doing a range of activities only weakly correlating to future success in the academy.

This seems plausible, but is the inverse of the traditional expectation of what grows and what stays the same. I refer only to a pragmatic experience of regex implementation (as opposed to a theoretical refutation of the point) - the size of the pattern is typically a constant and the metric of interest is usually the difficulty of scanning a fixed pattern over an arbitrary and increasing-sized input buffer with worst case input.

This result has always been a bit of a head-scratcher for me, in that it seems to require that we increase the pattern size (specifically, the number of back-references). While the result is correct, it seems to run counter to common usage of regular expressions, where the regular expression is fixed and the interest is generally in how fast a given regular expression runs over N bytes of input data.

It feels a bit like informing people that comparing two integers is O(N) because maybe the integers are bignums with N bits each; true, but counter to common usage.

People with a "intermediate understanding of weightlifting and program design" have a long history of not having the faintest clue what they are talking about. Given how frequently fashions have shifted over the past 20-30 years, the armchair experts can't have all been right about whose routines are "terrible" and contain "massive flaws". Plyos or no plyos? O-lifts? HIT? Bodybuilding? Draw-ins, bracing, stabilization or old fashioned situps? Linear or non-linear periodization? 4-times a day training or "lots of rest"?

It's almost like there might be multiple ways of doing this stuff and that a lot of it doesn't matter nearly as much as people think, especially in a population that has to play a ton of their actual sport.

A lot of this IMO stems from confusing two populations, to wit: "elite athletes who are already beastly strong and conditioned, and training skills on a near full-time basis" and "the pool of perennial beginners/intermediates who make up the vast majority of sport science study populations, internet fora and personal training $$$".

I have a guarded respect for Jeff Vogel's games, but having played the Avernum series quite a bit, I'd say part of the trick here is being closer to "making the same game 22 times" (or the same 4 games 5.5 times each). Certainly Avernum feels like a rogue-like with a better story, better UI and a more solid gameplay mechanic. However, it never really rose much beyond that for me.

I'm glad he's doing what he's doing and doing well at it, but this is a very conservative approach to making games and IMO rather redundant with commercial game development. If I just want to trek around a big, semi-open world and do the same damn thing over and over building a character, there's a half-dozen Bethesda games that let me do it in 3D or approximately 3000 Roguelikes.

Generally the effort of playing an indie game to me is only rewarded when they show me something I haven't seen before - and there's real possibility in these kind of lo-fi games for emergent behaviors and cool gameplay that isn't being strangled by the huge content pipeline of a commercial game (where anything that happens has to be brilliantly animated and at least reasonably voiced by someone, making it unlikely that too many emergent 'surprises' can happen).

> It also happens to be as hard or harder than most other types of software engineering.

This remarkable statement is probably true if we correct difficulty levels to the average ability of the population of "web developers".

Doing stuff that's "math-heavy or algorithmic" often involves years of training before you are even remotely effective. People are not snapping up the equivalent of "code school grads with little experience" to design and build optimizing compilers, computer vision systems, high performance distributed systems, operating systems, etc.

Seriously. Our local burrito chain has a loyalty program where you get a little card, and so on, but you have a password. Right, because I really want to remember a Burrito Password.