Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited



About straight_stewie

  • Title
  • Birthday 1994-05-10

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    North Mississippi
  • Interests
    Audio, Programming, Engineering. Just a hobbyist now, unfortunately.

Recent Profile Visitors

4,523 profile views
  1. You'll capitulate and get a job, or else you'll be homeless is what you'll do. Jobs may seem like slavery, but that's because, at least by my estimation of it, 9 times out of 10 people go into jobs with the wrong idea: A job isn't a place to work and make money. A job is a place to learn things, learn them quickly and learn them well. What has helped me the most in life is a simple realization. If you still have the ability to make rational choices, then there are only two things that matter in life: Family and knowledge. Those are the only two things that you will always have, that everyone who can make rational choices always has, no matter what. We are the product of our predecessors and we have a brain. That's it. That's all you get, and therefore, that's all that matters. Once you realize that, all of that other nonsense fades away. I'm not saying you need to quit doing what you're doing and go get a "real" job. If what you're doing is working, then that's great and you've accomplished something that alot of people wish they could do. I'm just saying that you should be mentally prepared that one day, you might have to get a normal job, and it'll be quite a bit easier if you're thinking about it right when that happens. Oh, and I'm also saying that learning programming solely for the purpose of making money never works. You have to be in it for the knowledge or else you'll give up before you get anywhere with it, because programming requires a serious amount of effort just learning how to do it. And that's before the serious amount of effort that it takes to actually build something useful once you know how to do it.
  2. I sense DatGuy coming. There's a few hard reasons to know multiple languages, like performance differences or different target platforms. The in vogue example is: Don't write a game engine in C#, write a game engine in C++ that can be scripted from C#. But the real reason to learn multiple languages is to learn how languages actually work. Only by learning how languages actually work can you truly understand what you are doing when you write software. This is something that, no matter how hard you try, you cannot learn by learning a single language, no matter how well you know that language. Knowing how the general class of languages works requires generalization. Generalization requires looking for patterns in a wide sample of sufficiently different, but still related, things. As another example of why learning how languages actually work is important, can you give valid statements from the following language definition? <statement> ::= <arguments> " " <commands>; <arguments> ::= <argument> | <argument> <arguments> | <arguments> " " <arguments>; <argument> ::= "0" | "1" | "2" | "3" | "4" | "5" | "6" | "7" | "8" | "9" | "A" | "B" | "C" | "D" | "E" | "F"; <commands> ::= <command> | <command> <commands>; <command> ::= "+" | "-" | "*" | "/"; Your hint is that it's a simple language and you probably already know it. Oh, and the metalanguage here is Backus-Naur-Form. Let's assume that you can give valid statements from that language. Excellent. Let's also assume that you've identified the common name of the language. Since you've identified the known language, you know what the semantic meaning of it's tokens are. Great. Now, write a program that can run the language. Stated differently, write me a program that takes well defined inputs from the description above and produces well defined outputs, which is what all programming is. Still stuck?
  3. The point of your OP was that that life is unstable and constantly under attack. But let's say your plan works out. You get to stay in it long enough to save up and buy a house. But then things go bad. Like you say, you'll inherit a flat. Are you sure that you will inherit the flat by the time things go south? If you have to wait to get the flat, what will you do in the meantime?
  4. If you've never been a good programmer, and you already know that you struggle with software development concepts, then you've got many years of dedicated practice ahead of you before you have the knowledge necessary to design, build, deploy, and maintain any software that will generate worthwhile amounts of money. If you're in your 30's, and since all you care about is money, you simply don't have the drive necessary to spend the requisite amounts of time studying, thinking, and practicing, without making a dime from it, and possibly while spending many dimes on textbooks, for many years. Sure, lot's of people go to university and some get pretty good at what they're studying in only four years: But they spend 8 hours a day or more doing literally nothing but trying to learn, with no immediate benefit, and lot's of immediate cost. There are many things you can do to make money. I program only as a hobby, even though I have formal education, while I work as a heavy equipment operator to pay the bills. Yes, most of the people at my job suck. Yes, I spend nearly all of my time at work. Yes, my boss is a racist, conceited, smartmouthed asshole. Yes, I frequently have to do things that I don't want to or that I find scary or stupid. But there's simply nothing else near me that's going to pay me the kind of money that this job pays me, using the skills and knowledge that I already have. So you don't like being bossed around, commuting, or anything else involved in life. To bad. Get over it. Everyone else in the world has to. Ignore and override. My advice to you is unrelated to programming: Spend some time looking at yourself. Think honestly about what you have and what you want. Be realistic with that last one. Then think about how to get there using the skills that you already have.
  5. An L-System is a description of a formal grammar in which all tokens in the input are concurrently transformed by their respective productions. Conversely, a Chomsky Grammar is a description of a formal grammar in which all tokens in the input are sequentially transformed by their respective productions. For example, in the context-free grammar: A ---> B B ---> AB With axiom "A" the L-System produces this tree. While the Chomsky grammar produces this tree. If we get our output by concatenating the leaf nodes of each tree into a string, the L-System produces the output "BAB", while the Chomsky Grammar produces the output "BAB". Since "BAB" is equivalent to "BAB", the two grammars produce the same output. However, the Chomsky grammar takes one more iteration over the input to produce it's output. This last statement is an interesting discovery: if the complexity of the L-System is O(1) and the complexity of the Chomsky Grammar is O(n) then, for large inputs, the L-System will produce the same result much faster. If this is true, that would mean that most programs which transform their input stand to gain significant performance improvements by defining them as L-Systems rather than as Chomsky Grammars. Which leads to the importance of finding a proof for the conjecture: L-Systems and Chomsky Grammars define precisely equivalent grammars. As a simple example of their equivalence let's consider a program which takes two inputs, a string A and a character B. The task of the program is to find if the character B exists in the string A. The program is to output a boolean value of true if it finds the character, otherwise it is to output a boolean value of false. As an example, let's run our program with the inputs A="ABDEF" and B='F'. The program could then be defined as the context-free grammar: F ---> true The L-System then produces this graph: While the Chomsky Grammar produces this graph: It is immediately apparent that the two produce the same output. It is also immediately apparent that the Chomsky grammar again has a complexity of O(n) while the L-System has a complexity of O(1). In this concrete example, the Chomsky Grammar takes nearly four times as many iterations to produce the same output that the L-System produces in one iteration. Let us now consider a similar program. This time with two inputs, a string A and a string B. The task of the program is to find if the string B exists in the string A. If the program finds the string B in the string A it is to output a boolean value of true. Otherwise, if the program does not find the string B in the string A, it is to output a boolean value of false. Let us run this program with the example inputs A="ABCDEF" and B="DEF" . This program cannot be defined by a simple context-free grammar. Instead, it's definition requires a right-context-sensitive grammar: D > E ---> x x > F ---> true The L-System then produces this graph: While the Chomsky Grammar produces this graph. What we can gleam from this is that the L-System is again faster. This time, however, the L-Systems complexity is related to the number of non-terminal productions, while the Chomsky Grammars complexity is still related to the size of the axiom. Of course, this reduces the advantage of the L-System as the length of the match string B approaches the length of the string A. However, this can be solved with a left-right-context-sensitive grammar for the same problem: D < E > F ---> true The L-System then yields the graph: While the Chomsky Grammar yields the graph: While it may appear at first glance that the L-Systems complexity is back to being constant, it's actual complexity is O(n/2) where n is the length of the match string B. The complexity of the Chomsky Grammar is still O(n) where n is the number of characters in the input string A. Interestingly, in each example, the L-System produces a faster solution. Which leads to the conjecture: L-Systems and Chomsky Grammars define the same family of grammars. Additionally, for every problem solvable by defining a grammar, there exists a grammar for which the L-System has a smaller complexity than the equivalent Chomsky Grammar. At first thought, that conjecture may not mean much. Both L-Systems and Chomsky grammars must look at each token in the input. However, by the very definition of L-Systems, each input token can be transformed concurrently. On the other side of the same coin, the definition of Chomsky Grammars states that the tokens cannot be transformed concurrently. As a result, L-Systems not only have an advantage over Chomsky Grammars in that they have a lower complexity, L-Systems also have an advantage over Chomsky Grammars in that they are parallelizable and Chomsky Grammars are not.
  6. That's normal. There is a muscle in your ear called Tensor Tympani. The muscles primary job is to dampen loud noises, but it takes on other roles as well. For example, the muscle reacts with your facial muscle movements to dampen bone noise. These are involuntary movements of the Tensor Tympani Muscle. However, some individuals can develop voluntary control of this muscle.
  7. I have no experience with restoring old electronics. I have some beginner to early intermediate hobbyist experience with electronics. Recently, however, I've added my first electronic machine to my collection of vintage/antique calculating machines: The Commodore VIC-20. It appears to be in extremely good condition, however, I was only able to acquire it at a reasonable price because the box had water damage. The machine itself appears to be fine, and none of the manuals or other paperwork in the box show any evidence of water damage. The machine is not in perfect condition, so I am considering actually using it to start learning how to program vintage machines. What steps do I need to take before the first boot to ensure that I am the least likely to damage the machine?
  8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor_tympani_muscle I have the ability to control this muscle as well. I have for as long as I can remember.
  9. Holy low latency internet connections batman. That feature would not be viable in a mass market consumer product. The internet is based on a so-called best effort routing algorithm. Meaning, your traffic is not even guaranteed to get to where you want it to go at all. This is not suitable for the remote control of high speed machinery. Yes, there are some ways around that, and some protocols are designed to avoid those problems. But they are not perfect and flying high speed drones over a lengthy internet connection (say, flying a drone in the US from China) over the consumer internet infrastructure is not viable. Plus, I'm sure that more than a few governments would have something to say about a company going around selling what would essentially be ISR as a service to anyone with a credit card. In fact, I'm 100% sure that the US government would complain about it. The third article in the page I linked to for the definition of ISR is titled "How US Video Game Companies Are Building Tools For China's Surveillance State". Yes, the article is technically about removing access to video game services after a certain amount of time to conform to Chinese law regarding the video game addiction of minors, a very hypocritical position for our military/intelligence community to take by the way, but the sentiment is there: The US government does not want you to provide surveillance or military services, either purposefully or accidentally, to anyone but them.
  10. What were you learning in the class that assigned this at the time that it was assigned? 10 times out of 10, the teacher expects nothing but a solution that uses what they've been teaching you. If this is not homework, just a hobby, the most robust thing to do is formally define the language, and then build a lexer/parser to do the transformation for you.
  11. This is why I said "This is only true if one is unwilling to dedicate all the resources necessary to truly solve the problem". Why can you only change an items price in increments of 0.01? That's the problem that needs to be solved in order to reach a no compromise solution. In this case the solution lies in a more thorough investigation into how to handle rounding errors in financial software. Two general approaches are possible, calculate the actual solution, and then round towards the customers benefit, or calculate the actual solution and then round towards the businesses benefit. In some countries, or in some special cases in a given country, there may be law regulating how this is to be done. But even then, that's a compromise in and of itself. The real solution will require an extreme amount of financial resources to pull off: The system of money in question needs to be reworked to account for much more finely grained amounts of money. So again, I conjecture: For all decideable problems, there exists a perfect solution with no compromises. Whether it's worth building that solution or not is not relevant to the conjecture.
  12. The problem with the boosters was not the insulation foam, it was a faulty design with a single point of failure: The seals between sections. They claim to have rectified this, but they have not changed the design significantly, they have simply changed the seal shape and material. The seals are still a single point of failure. And yes, the tank foam still comes off, it's actually worse than it was during the shuttle days. The solution they chose was to move to a foam that does not harden as much when frozen. The idea being that if the foam isn't hard enough to damage the boosters, it won't damage the boosters when it hits them. The tradeoff was insulation performance: The outside of the tank freezes significantly more than it did in the shuttle days, causing actual ice to fall off of the tank. I have none specifically about the SLS, no. However, since the 16th Apollo flight, the most popular view was to be against spending money on space flight. Once the Russians started on their own space station program, things heated up enough to gain support for the Shuttle, but even that evaporated 19 years before the shuttles were grounded, with many politicians openly and publicly calling for an end to the space shuttle program throughout most of the programs life. Since 2005, I cannot recall a single time where space flight was popularly supported in the legislature beyond what directly helps the military and honoring existing commitments. I can think of many times where politicians said that they wanted to push getting to Mars, only to immediately vote against funding anything that had to do with US manned space flight. With over 30 years of the most popular political view being to not spend money on manned space flight, I think that the point is self evident and it should have to be proven that we are actually dedicated to getting it done, and not the other way around. That's funny, considering that from first US manned space flight to landing on the moon took only 8 years. The SLS has already been in development for almost 9 years, and has yet to fly a single time. In addition to that, the US has not been conducting self supported manned space flight in the mean time. If modern military programs are anything to go by, you are absolutely correct. The date could slip by 20 years and everyone would claim that everything is fine. However, if we go by the history of our space programs, significant deadline misses are very bad news, usually leading to project cancellation.
  13. The SLS will never carry a human. Not unless there are some very serious and significant changes in the way that our government has been treating space flight, and in the design of the system. It has not yet flown, it is behind it's original schedules, and it is being severely underfunded with too tight a deadline. On top of that, every single space shuttle accident was caused by either the external tank, or the external boosters. Both of which are core components of the SLS. The fact that they have been significantly improved and modified for the SLS is not relevent: Every single politician who does not see the value of very expensive and dangerous space flight, which is currently most of them, will fight very hard to prevent the SLS from ever carrying a human. Politically, the SLS is a non option. This means that we rely on Falcon Heavy to get there. NASA itself is fighting SpaceX on carrying humans to space, so there is quite a bit of ground that needs to be covered before SpaceX becomes a viable option either. Technical as in knowledge, you're right. Technical as in red tape and existing machines? This is absolutely untrue. The US has been unwilling to recover man carrying capabilities since 2005. Since the Space Shuttle was grounded, no proposed or even already built machines have been approved for manned flight. Additionally, even in the intense heat of the early cold war, with nearly unlimited funding and the entire nation behind the program, it took $2.2 billion dollars (of back then money, no less) and a lead time of 7 years to get the first man rated LEM to fly. Currently, the government is only willing to budget $1.8 billion dollars to the program in total, and is giving a lead time of only 4 years. And there is currently next to no political pressure, or support, to get it done. Work on Artemis hasn't even really started, and useful funding isn't even budgeted for this year. We simply will not make the deadline, and I believe, not the program either. The political and financial support just isn't there, and the will of the people isn't there to push the politicians to get it done either. Why do you think Trump would set a deadline of 2024? Is it because he thinks we can actually do this in the allotted time? Or is it because that's the last year he might possibly be in office?
  14. @halfass hmmmm..... This is only true if one is unwilling to dedicate all the resources necessary to truly solve the problem. For all decideable problems, there exists a no compromise solution. Sometimes it just requires a lot to get there. Compromise can always be replaced by work. Of course, I could be wrong. This is the belief that drove Steve Jobs crazy.
  15. Well, we're already this far. The first FTL flight in the Star Trek universe occurred in 2063. At our current rate of development, we will not make this deadline. This is important, because FTL flight is required to establish stable dependent colonies on any bodies besides our moon. We likely won't walk on an another planetary body again, including our moon, until we move past combustion engines for spaceflight. (Yes, I'm saying Trumps promise of the moon by 2024 is complete and utter bullshit. For more reasons than just this too.) Beyond this, Earth is the only naturally habitable planet in our solar system. There is one other planet within habitable distance of our sun, Venus, but it is no where near habitable. The least of Venus' habitability issues is no water. So, in order to inhabitant any other planets within our solar system with a large enough population to prevent species dependence on a single planet, we will need effective, positive, and planet scale environmental control systems. These are also a requirement for continued habitation on Earth. Currently, the only remotely pressing natural mass extinction issue is climate change, so if we develop planet scale environmental control systems, we will not be at risk of extinction within many millions of years. Of course, all of that is meaningless anyway. If we are only inhabiting planets in our solar system, and we have effective planet scale environmental control systems, humans are not at risk of naturally caused mass extinction on Earth until our Suns death, which will, of course, lead to an end of life everywhere in our solar system. Therefore, we don't just need FTL flight to make the plan worthwhile, we need the ability to establish stable dependent colonies in other solar systems. Oh, and to beat all of that, as long as humans are at risk of nuclear mass extinction events, the whole practice is meaningless because they will be at risk of that everywhere. So in order to make any of it meaningful, we also have to convince all people currently in existence, and all people in future existence, to give up nuclear weapons at least until we encounter other, hostile, intelligent life. Good luck with that. Right now, the issue is money and focus. Those with enough money are not focused enough to get there. Musk could maybe get there, but he's been having some serious personal issues lately that are gravely affecting the functioning of his businesses. Bezos claims to be trying to get orbital ferry flights, but he lacks enough focus to get there as well. There is a third company, Space Adventures, which claims to be offering orbital spacewalk flights, ISS visits, and circumlunar flights. Their current plans are based on corrupt Russian government contacts, and to date, they have sold three seats, but failed to make a single flight. They are quoting $150,000,000 USD for a circumlunar flight, but this is no where near enough money to actually get a human to lunar orbit. During the Apollo age, it's estimated that lunar excursions cost over a million dollars a minute, and that was in 1970's money. At our current state, non state actors conducting space flights with the possibility for any ill effects other than more orbital garbage is a non-issue. The final point is that, for the reasons I've listed above, none of that is currently a meaningful issue. Besides that, when it becomes a meaningful issue, we will need to solve it lazily. Meaning, there are too many things that we do not know to develop some sort of master plan about how to spread human life through the universe. We are simply not advanced enough to even reason about these issues in meaningful ways yet.