orbots
orbots on Hacker News
One example. Not a very important one, but illustrative.
https://discourse.julialang.org/t/why-no-base-iterators-map/...
The "bubble effect" here was assumption that everyone has internet access and dependencies to external ( community maintained ) packages are zero cost.
Happily 2 years later this was resolved to my satisfaction.
I think this is correct. My understanding of the two-language problem was probably not the same as the one they claimed to solve. More likely they meant: write slow code in python and then optimize inner loops with c.
Anyways, I'm glad I did invest in learning Julia. Just disappointed it didn't save me from C++. On to Rust!
I'm a Julia user who has also given up as a Julia community member. The bubble is real. I found too often when I wanted to do something outside of that bubble and asked for help, I got unhelpful advice which amounted to "why do you want do something outside of our bubble?"
Right. It used to be referenced on the front page of julialang.org Seems they don't really use that in the sale pitch anymore. Maybe that proves my point. It's easy to find references to julia claiming to solve the two-language problem though. I am someone who this two-language problem they speak of addresses.
I love Julia. Which is why it's so painful that I have to rewrite all my elegant Julia prototype code in C++, so I can compile into a shared lib for the users. Every. Single. Time. Two languages.
Now that it isn't the main front and centre claim, I feel a bit less bitter about using it as a prototyping language.
Waiting another 5 years and maybe it really will solve the two-language problem.
Julia claims to "solve the two language problem". i.e. prototype in python, rewrite in c++. The two language problem is not solved with Julia if you can't effectively generate binaries.
Anyone know what the "select" cryptocurrencies are?
The focus on Bitcoin's lack of intrinsic value and energy use is really getting boring.
I read Hacker News comments for more information on a story.
How about some of that for a switch? Go bitch about intrinsic value and ecological disaster on one of the other bitcoin threads please.
There is a fairly nuanced difference that doesn't really matter much unless you are a mathematician. Essentially in GA you'd do your differential geometry assuming a sort of ambient background space. In regular differential geometry the space of forms and vectors are abstracted and don't require a shared geometric embedding. I'm not a mathematician, so this is a very non-precise explanation, but that's how I understand it.
Don't paint us all with the same brush please. Some of us are totally sufferable.
You want to pick an algebra that fits your problem.
Here's an example of a high performance GA lib targeting specific hardware.
https://github.com/jeremyong/klein
Also you can use matrices to do calculations. Pauli or Dirac matrices can be used as the basis vectors for GA.
I've come to see it more as the inverse of a division operator. Like a quaternion can be defined as the ratio of two vectors q = a/b. then qb = a and qc will rotate c the same amount as needed to take b into a. dual quaternions have a similar motivating derivation.
Memory layout. You can do a hacky "cast" from a homegeneous 4-vector to a ideal 3-vector for free. Same pointer.
https://brillouinenergy.comThese guys seem to have figured it out.
Seems the problem with replicating cold fusion is that what most researchers do degrades the "lattice" that enables the reaction. So even if you do manage to get results, you won't be able to repeat it.