AlEinstein

Options spread.

What’s heartbreaking is that he didn’t trade any leverage at all. He executed an options spread that was worth about $700k on each leg. Due to the nature of buying and selling options, the app showed his position as short $700k because the long leg hadn’t settled yet. All he needed to do was wait and he would have seen the balance go back to what he expected.

The floating point results are suspiciously good compared to the rest of the results. I wonder if they have some good VLIW instructions for floating point or it’s just an error in the spreadsheet.

This doesn’t have any info about the instruction set.

The google translation is not bad:

https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&...

If you already know what a vector space is and what a tensor product is and you recognise and understand bra-ket notation I would say there’s a very good chance you already know what quantum entanglement is.

So who is the target audience for this?

It may be true that bitcoin will be a good store of value but this article doesn’t make a good case for it. For example, bitcoin is quite volatile, which would tend to make it a poor store of value. The article doesn’t address that aspect at all. If obvious drawbacks aren’t addressed then the case isn’t made.

I once had my card skimmed while I was overseas. Westpac reversed all the transactions and sent me a new card.

You are correct!

To answer your question, writing a NUL char to stdout is no problem. Some utilities can actually use it as a delimiter since it’s so uncommon. I think most shells would just print nothing on the screen.

Have fun in your HTTP 1.1 world.

You can multiply 1/3 by 3 and not get 1.

Did you even read the article? I’ve been wanting something like this for a while. It’s a solid engineering decision that needs good marketing to make sure people understand that it’s good for battery life.

Is this cache friendly on a modern cpu? On the face of it, it seems to be quite cache unfriendly.

Hmmm... design fashions change over time and are also affected by technological limitations.

I’m the beginning we had text only terminals. Font designs were about it.

Business machines stayed that way for quite a while.

8 bit machines came along and allowed a rudimentary windowing environment. The “desktop” metaphor with its “files” was extremely popular and arguably very successful.

Roll on 16 and 32 bit machines and the windows and Mac “desktop” windowing systems added some colour but no whimsy.

Macs got some smiles. Good god - it’s the end of grown ups.

iPhones (not iPads as the article asserts) introduced a heavily skeumorphic interface for two reasons: it was technologically possible on that platform and it was a design that someone with enough influence had chosen.

No surprises there: a wildly successful product that introduced a new design idea sparked a new fashion in UI design.

But skeumorphism in web design turned out to be less than great for reasons presented in the article.

So we retreat from skeumorphism and end up with: flat and colourful. UX (not just UI) experts discover that fast-loading and simple to comprehend websites convert to more sales and more profit.

Simple and easy is king on the web for obvious reasons.

If simple and easy looks like infantile there’s an excellent reason: it’s because they share many things. But not all.

Online gambling and share trading platforms my look infantile because they want to be appealing but they are fundamentally not infantile.

It’s easy enough to make a point if one only presents facts that support it. So much is skipped in this article that I feel like it might well be possible to cherry-pick enough opposing examples to argue exactly the opposite.

What proportion of machines running web assembly are stack-based, would you say?

I would guess negligible.

Wow that paragraph is like the poster child for the logical fallacy called “appeal to tradition”.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

“difficulty, struggle and suffering are inherently worthwhile, more authentic and character-building”

Is there any research on this topic or is this just your opinion?

I don’t know why you’re getting downvoted. It’s a fair question to ask.

“Why can’t I buy” is essentially equivalent to “why doesn’t anyone sell”, which is basically “why isn’t there a market for?”

It’s possible to have a conversation around “why isn’t there a market for ARM desktops?” or equivalent but a conversation about “why isn’t there a market for anything but x86” would basically be enumerating the alternatives and examining each.

Nobody is going to open a store aimed at the “anyone but x86” market.

And assaulting women at conventions is cool and normal because it’s what Asimov did, right?

This article apparently goes from “most reals are non-algebraic and therefore contain an infinite amount of information” to “so if I use reals to describe a physical system then my mathematical model is infinite even if my physical system is not”.

There are so many problems with both of those statements that it’s hard to know where to start.

How about this: if you represent finite information with reals, your reals will be finite and there’s no problem.

Let’s say my physical system is a rocket launching into space to deploy a satellite into orbit. There are lots of numbers and many equations involved. Exactly none of those numbers we be of the “infinite information” kind. All of the numbers are either measured or derived. Measurements don’t produce an infinitely precise real number.

And of course there’s the whole quantum limit on the amount of information in a given volume of space. So we don’t even need real numbers really.

Even Pi, the example given, doesn’t “contain” an infinite amount of information. It can be represented as the limit of a series using a finite amount of information. In terms of Kolmogorov complexity it contains very little information.

You know, “most” of the reals are uncomputable too. That doesn’t mean the ones we use are all uncomputable.

Just a tip: you’ve used the word “whom” incorrectly here. You can just use the word “who” and you’ll always be correct.

Well it might use category theory and be buzzword compliant but the code you’ve written wouldn’t pass code review at my work. This code converts numeric data to a string and back to numeric data.

"Everyone agrees that we should try to avoid extinction"

Perhaps I'm an outlier here but I don't see why we should do anything in particular to ensure the survival of humanity.

Would it though?

Because Perelman.

I mean he wrote Perelman’s name so he must be onto something.

The source code for the game, rather than the game itself.

Are you saying that you personally have zero quantum computers or that nobody has more than zero quantum computers?

“no Touch Bar” is listed as a con. I consider physical keys to be a pro.