http://demented.no-ip.org/~feep/rss_proxy.cgi?5782108
You can also get email alerts of new chapters, directly from fanfiction.net
cwillu
Karma: 100
And note the hat’s commentary on the matter.
It doesn’t feel very fundamental. How commonly they crop up, and how easy they are to debug have much to do with your editor, coding style and interpreter/compiler.
the use of long’ish descriptive identifiers makes it less likely that single typos collide with other valid names, while text-completion largely eliminates single-character typos as a class of error.
syntax highlighting provides a useful form of spell-checking
consistent formatting makes it difficult to accidentally hide ‘structural typos’, especially given editor support (mainly brace matching).
These sorts of concerns are very amenable to technical solutions, which are commonly implemented to various degrees. But even if they were completely eliminated, programming wouldn’t be that much easier. My boss would still be making fun of me for staring off into space for long stretches while I’m thinking through a problem.
This is exactly analogous to typos vs defects of argument in prose. Yes, spell-checking will miss typos that collide with valid words, but it feels off to claim this as a deep insight into the nature of writing.
I took the liberty of mucking up the spreadsheet a little bit:
Calculate preferred time in UTC
Sort names alphabetically
Total number of people who would prefer to have the meeting at a given UTC time.
Once more people have filled in their preferred times, it might make sense to re-sort by that.
I’m in; Saskatoon, Canada.
I think the “it’s bigger on the inside” phenomenon is a better foundation to build such a spell on.
Beware Canadians seeking paperclips.
On further consideration, my complaint wasn’t my real/best argument, consider this a redirect to rwallace’s response above :p
That said, I personally don’t take ‘many’ as meaning ‘most’, but more in the sense of “a significant fraction”, which may be as little as 1⁄5 and as much as 4⁄5. I’d be somewhat surprised if the number of old machines (5+ years old) in use wasn’t in that range.
re: scaling, the Ubuntu folding team’s wiki describes the approach.
One who refers to their powered-off computer as ‘idle’ might find themselves missing an arm.
Many != all.
My desktop is old enough that it uses very little more power at full capacity than it does at idle.
Additionally, you can configure (may be the default, not sure) the client to not increase the clock rate.
I use the origami client manager thingie; it handles deploying the folding client, and gives a nice progress meter. The ‘normal’ clients should have similar information available (I’d expect that origami is just polling the clients themselves).
Granted that in many cases, it’s donating money that you were otherwise going to burn.
Has anybody considered starting a folding@home team for lesswrong? Seems like it would be a fairly cheap way of increasing our visibility.
After a brief 10 word discussion on #lesswrong, I’ve made a lesswrong team :p
Our team number is 186453; enter this into the folding@home client, and your completed work units will be credited.
Fair point, but the assumption that it indeed is possible to verify source code is far from proven. There’s too many unknowns in cryptography to make strong claims as to what strategies are possible, let alone which would be successful.
Conditional on one site or the other going down, the second instance adds little buffer.
An ufai would simply focus its efforts on pieces of code likely to be common between the two sites, ensuring that it can take both down at the same cost. This also assumes that developing such an attack is costly, which it may not be: I would expect a sensory modality for code to reduce our commonly made coding blunders to the level of “my coffee cup is leaking because there’s a second hole at the bottom”.
Within the confines of the story:
No star that has been visited by starline has ever been seen from another, which implies a vastly larger universe than can be seen from a given lightcone. Basically, granting the slightly cryptographic assumption that travel between stars is impossible.
The weapon is truly effective: works as advertised.Any disagreement with that would have to say why “”“ ‘Assume there is no god, then...’ “But there is a god!” “”” fallacy doesn’t apply here.
The threat of a nova feels like a more interesting avenue than the mere detonation.
Make sure you’re logged out first, otherwise your search results are tuned according to your search history.