Because it looks like your opponent is a Swedish former demoscener who started programming at age 12 on the C64 and Amiga computers in 1990, quickly moving on to writing games and demos in assembly, then professionally developing physics engines since 2001, specializing in game performance profiling and squeezing performance out of optimized mobile games.
As far as game dev stereotypes go you basically picked a Final Boss fight. Good luck, you'll need it :p
The quote makes much more sense as an in-joke between two like-minded people, because Alan Kay isn't exactly humble himself nor does he avoid provocative statements.
And speaking as a Dutch man, given the kind of humor we have I'm pretty certain Dijkstra appreciated a good roast like that too.
Have seen that presentation, but that still does not give the full context. At least, I don't think it is obvious from the video alone whether this remark was a friendly jab between friends, or whether it was a stereotypical vicious academic back-and-forth between to big names in a field.
Perhaps we would have more of a chance if we make a collection of international differences in checkmark designs and propose that set of glyphs as a whole.
The other comment is correct, it was added as part of proposal adding a larger set of mathematical symbols[0]. The wikipedia page actually mentions the path through which it was added, which lets us make some educated guesses:
> From that apparent beginning, the Angzarr was swept up into the Monotype typeset catalog of arrow characters (...) It is unknown why Monotype added the character, or what purpose it was intended to serve
> In 1988, the International Organization for Standardization added the symbol to its Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML) definition, apparently pulling it from the Monotype character set.
> In March 2000, the Angzarr symbol reached wide distribution when the Unicode Technical Committee, in collaboration with the STIX project, proposed adding it to ISO/IEC 10646, the ISO standard with which the Unicode Standard is synchronised. The Angzarr was proposed in the ISO working-group document Proposal for Encoding Additional Mathematical Symbols, although no specific purpose is listed for the symbol.
My guess is that the people proposing the addition of new maths symbols[1] weren't going to decide on inclusion or exclusion of a symbol on the basis of being familiar with it themselves or not, since that was likely true for many symbols that happened to only be used in fields of mathematics that they were not working in. Meaning they had to rely on some other kind of "authority" to infer that a symbol was used by the larger maths community. With that in mind "being part of the Monotype catalog and part of SGML" seems like a pretty sensible heuristic to go by.
Another consideration might have been that they simply wished to have complete coverage of the symbols that SGML encoded, regardless of familiarity with the symbols involved. And of course both could have been true.
There's something hilariously telling about calling yourself the "ultimate" dev while being completely oblivious about who Don Hopkins is, or what his views on this type of subject would be.
The quote is from a slide of an FBI presentation of unclassified information regarding the Epstein files that is hosted on justice.gov itself. What about this is hearsay exactly?
You're calling a direct quote of a testimony given by one of Epstein's victims "hearsay". ctrl+f "bit" in that PDF.
Pretending to be oblivious to the many complaints that the attacks in Iran are another attempted distraction from the Epstein files isn't fooling anyone either.
You may feel like it's "off-topic", but I don't see why people should be allowed to talk about and glorify military techology, but not voice their disgust at it, how it is used, or why.
Anyone can claim anything. That is not proof.
Surely you can see we've been down this road before with fabricated claims.
I do hope that Epstein's inner circle is taken down, but let's get hard evidence.
Some claims from the 80s and old pictures of them together in public is not proof.
There IS more evidence on other people though, and I hope those people get what they deserve. It's fucking sick.
How long can you continue to defend and carry the water for pedos? It's not a good look, and it reflects on your character and personality. Do you think you'll ever get tired of it? Or do you get even more committed and dig in even deeper every time you do it, because of your pride, and refusal to admit you're wrong in the face of enormous piles of irrefutable evidence and an obvious cover-up? Are you actually gullible enough to believe the Department of Justice keeps accidentally illegally withholding millions of documents, so many of which just happen to be about Trump? Or do you just want us to believe you're astoundingly gullible to cover up your much more insidious motives? If the Trump-Epstein Files prove he's innocent like he claims, then why doesn't he release them all without redacting his own and other powerful pedos' names, as promised by his campaign and required by law? And why do you keep pretending to fall for that bullshit hook line and sinker and defending him again and again? Your posting history is so embarrassing -- have you no shame? Are you into public self humiliation or something?
Edit: I have never defended Clinton, and he hasn't been president for decades, and has not started World War III and bombed 170 school girls to distract from the Trump-Epstein Papers like Trump just did. And no, nobody's paying me to school you the truth about Trump by refuting your lies.
>Anyone can claim anything.
And you just claimed Trump broke ties with Epstein in the 80's, which proves you're a liar. And you still have to explain why you believe everything Trump claims without question or evidence.
You have a long well documented track record of HN posts defending Trump, so you're lying through your teeth when you say that you hope all involved are prosecuted. And there you go again lying about how Trump cut ties in the 80's. Your facts are wrong and you know it. Trump never claimed to have cut ties in the 80's, so you're lying about that, and Trump is lying about having a falling out in 2004. Epstein was a member of Mar-a-Lago until at least 2007. There is a 2011 email from Epstein to Ghislaine Maxwell discussing Trump and time spent at Epstein’s house, and the infamous and disgusting 2003 birthday letter signed by Trump that appeared in Epstein’s birthday album. In your own words: "It's fucking sick." So stop lying to defend pedos.
Yet you have the audacity to lie that they cut ties in the 80's, directly contradicting what Trump himself has claimed that their relationship lasted decades longer than that, and proving beyond any doubt that you're a liar who is willing to bend the truth by more than two decades to protect Trump, when it's so trivial to prove you're wrong and rub your face in your own lies by simply quoting Trump's own words:
In a 2002 New York magazine interview, Trump said:
"I've known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy... it is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side."
It's as if you WANT to be proven a liar, so you just sharted that totally obvious bullshit about Trump cutting ties with Epstein in the 80's -- "the guy who cut ties back in the 80s" -- so you would get caught red handed lying in this very conversation on purpose. What is wrong with you, dude? Did you think nobody would call you on it? Do you get off on humiliating yourself?
Now let's get to the bottom of why you are so invested in defending pedos by lying. Now that you've just proven again how blatantly and mendaciously you will lie to protect pedos, explain WHY?
How customizeable is the programming of the thermal printers? Whenever I see the dot prints of these thermal print cameras I wonder if I could make it look better using more modern dithering algorithms, e.g. Ostromoukhov dithering:
If you got a recent digital one it actually does print on the photography paper. I'm guessing it works like a line scanner but in reverse, using color LEDs to "print" light dots in high resolution on the paper.
Of course, I don't know how those bubbles are made or how they are made to collapse from heat, so for all I know that layer still uses chemicals that currently slip through regulations. But I can also imagine that it is doable to create such a "functional layer" with safe materials.
I thought this was going to be like a Game of Life variation I came up with about 15 years ago where you stack multiple layers of 2D Cellular Automata, allow each layer to have their own rule set, do single steps of each and then define the interactions between the layer as applying Boolean operations before doing the next step (e.g. set layer 1 = 1 xor 2, layer 2 = 1 xnor 2).
I'm pretty sure that's effectively a subset of what you can encode with a multi-state CA (you can after all interpret each layer as a "bit", so e.g. with two layers each point can be in "four states", meaning any give combination of rulesets ber layer + masking operation should have an equivalent four-state CA, but I never bothered to figure out how one would map from one to the other, and then the hard drive where the code was stored crashed so I forgot about it.
https://www.voxagon.se/
Because it looks like your opponent is a Swedish former demoscener who started programming at age 12 on the C64 and Amiga computers in 1990, quickly moving on to writing games and demos in assembly, then professionally developing physics engines since 2001, specializing in game performance profiling and squeezing performance out of optimized mobile games.
As far as game dev stereotypes go you basically picked a Final Boss fight. Good luck, you'll need it :p
reply