dasmithii

This a surprisingly promising list of ideas, especially for an incubator to suggest. Things like internet infrastructure, ideally, are in the non-profit sector. And though YC does fund non-profits, I can't imagine they'd be happy with a swarm of unprofitable applicants coming in next round.

I'm alternating between "1984" and "I am a strange loop" right now. I like to mix in some fiction with the serious stuff.

Thank you - this looks like a great resource, and I'll definitely follow your advice.

I was thinking less along the lines of secret views, and instead, on how many people hold socialist-like beliefs without associating themselves (internally, not outwardly) with the word "socialist".

In the modern U.S., "socialist" and "communist" have become derogatory terms more than anything else, and their colloquial meanings are rarely consistent with any formal definition. Because of this stigma, it's easy for one to possess socialist beliefs while simultaneously dismissing all things "socialist", as they are universally negative.

Was Erlang designed in light of any ancestor languages? Or is it fairly original - create from scratch?

I'm interested in the language design process.

I'd love to see a hyperlocal (bluetooth, maybe?), mesh network-based messaging app popularize. I uncertain if you'd be able to charge for it though, since users are often of the "open, free access for all" type. Marketing to a different demographic may help though. For the common high school student, something that allows messages to be sent without service or WIFI sounds valuable.

I'm sorry but your final paragraph turned me away. It's one thing if you're looking for fun side projects to play around with, but asking others to provide income-generating ideas seems unethical to me.

*he's the only self-proclaimed socialist. Surely there are more who possess similar ideologies, but aren't outwardly socialist.

The term is harsh, and I've heard numerous complaints over "War on X" phrases, as you say, but I think this one is justified/beneficial. It indicates that drugs are the "them", and "us" encompasses legislators, regular people, and users the like.

Wow, I've been looking for something of this caliber for a long while. Thanks for sharing.

I'm uncertain that I've ever checked for errors after calling fork.

Thanks for providing an impetus to do so.

I wouldn't call it 'horrible', but rather, inconsistent with C++ and its target area.

Zero-overhead abstraction is a key talking point of the language. Virtual-by-default would contradict this entirely.

You're correct. When fetched, modules are given their own directory and compiled locally (one directory per module/dependency). New projects are then scanned for dependencies, linked against pre-compiled libraries, and necessary headers are added to the search path.

In terms of presets, I have some [basic] defaults included myself, but more can be added in an optional config file, along with arbitrary compiler flags.

Kit is optimized for simple projects, where crazy build scripts aren't needed. So, yeah, for fine-grained control, I'd stick to existing tools. However, this may be more pleasant than alternatives for personal projects, as you mention.

I hadn't come across ccan before your post, so my thoughts on it are fairly superficial. [warn me if I'm off track]

From what I can tell, it's been around for a while, has countless modules, and probably is a better choice than Kit at this point, given the early stage of this project.

There are two main differences: (1) Kit is a project manager, while CCAN is a code archive, and (2) Kit modules are compiled libraries, while CCAN distributes source code only.

So, I suppose one would decide in favor of Kit because of its whole-scope approach. If not that, because CCAN looks quite hackish at first glance. From its homepage: "just hack whatever parts you want so it compiles in your project".

[author here]

I'm hoping to lessen the pain in dealing with tools like gcc and make/cmake/etc. More importantly, C libraries are scattered inaccessibly throughout the web, and Kit provides a central index of modularized units. What's most important going forward is to gather useful libraries, modify them to meet kit standards, and link them in this central registry. Any help there would be appreciated (i.e. send me your libraries!).

Please let me know if you find bugs, have questions, or anything like that.

This reminds me a story of an old composer, John Cage.

He's notorious for some really bizarre performance. For instance, he once sat for four minutes in front of an enormous crowd only to stand up and leave before making any sounds at all. This action, as he intended, took advantage of peoples' expectation to listen while in the concert hall. It built up a sense of anxiety, as he walked in, sat at the organ, and flipped pages atop the music stand. But then, suddenly, there was silence. And those with open ears were forced to hear minute sounds in the room, rather than the presupposed "music".

On another occasion, he composed what ideally would cause expert musicians to sound amateurish - wretched, actually. But after many trials with different orchestral branches, he became overwhelmed with failure. These people, having been trained for excellence, literally could not play nonsense. Any sheet music you'd give them would result in reasonably coherent output.

Like the smart people of this article, these musicians rationalized Cage's music, no matter how nonsensical. They could not play bad music.

Though more subtle, I'd say yes, there are both (1) people who enjoy software development regardless of its impact on the world, and (2) others with more utilitarian motives.

Personally, I'm split. Though I idealize that genuine curiosity of the pure mathematician, I often feel obligated to use my skills 'for good', whatever that means.

It serves mostly as a litmus test against blatant predictability. As said above, sequential lines or otherwise obvious shapes would indicate poor randomness.

I wouldn't evaluate a generator solely on the basis of a bytemap. But these visualizations are of value.

[author here]

It's difficult to have meaningful discussion (w/ regard to randomness) when involving more philosophical principles. For those who believe wholeheartedly in a deterministic universe, the concept is utter nonsense.

That's why it's important that pragmatic folk focus on practical and statistical randomness, rather than universal randomness.

By practical, I mean that the information required to predict generated numbers is simply not available. It may exist; it may not; but regardless, it's inaccessible to those in need of it.

In this case, I'm not certain if sufficient thread-scheduling information is available to derive accurate predictions, or if separate processes could be of effect without altering the speed at which RNG state mutation occurs simultaneously. Being interdependent on other thread & process CPU usage, my approach might be another case of "the act of observation changing the thing observed".

But then again, I'm know little of both cryptography and CPU scheduling. This comment, like this project, is largely speculative.

It seems to be an improvement from the notoriously poor rand() of PHP.

(not confident in the credibility of this article) http://boallen.com/assets/images/randbitmap_computer.png

I suppose the 100% CPU is (very) unnecessary.

Maybe I'll include a variable sleeping time determined by current buffer values. That way, thread synchronization would be further disorganized, and CPU power wouldn't be wasted quite as much.

In that case, it's important that mutations take place between every byte outputted tough.

Interesting.

Though sleep sort is obnoxious (& hilarious), I'm sure it could be of use in educational situations. It's both elegant and intuitive. Thought provoking, maybe?

I've added a note in the readme.

Sorry to have been misleading.

[author here]

You're correct. It's a horribly bad idea, and the thought I put into it was pretty minimal. Just a fun hack, really.

I'll put a note in the readme.

I'd love to help develop this (and experiment myself!). Is it open source?

If so, where can I find the repo?

Interesting how we sometimes prefer restriction to full-fledged freedom. Similarly, many of us find Twitter more pleasant that Facebook, which puts no limitation on post length.

I suppose the minuscule details of life are better left in the hands of others (or software, for that matter). When spell checks, word counts and the like are left outside one's realm of thought, it's easier to focus on what's truly meaningful - in this case, the content itself, rather than grammatical intricacies.

Premature optimization is an enormous problem in both code and prose. This tool's core purpose is to remove that temptation, I guess, though I'm not fanatic about the concept. If modern word processors are too distracting, and their advantages aren't necessary, I'd prefer to write on physical paper instead. It brings the same "don't look back" mentality.

I suppose my statement was a bit unfounded. Having just graduated, many of my friends have begun experimenting now that school's out (and schedules are less strict).

Small sample size, I admit...

I'm not well-versed in modern sleep research, but our habits today are shifting drastically for the first time. Because of electricity, we're no longer bound to the sun cycle, as species of past millennia have been, and the typical day-night sleep schedule is no longer required.

With alternative sleep cycles popularizing (i.e. biphasic, dymaxion, everyman), I wonder if we'll find that more efficient/healthy systems exist. It's very possible that our modern habits evolved in spite of best health, reacting to more immediate issues instead. But now, with a counter to the danger of darkness, we have an opportunity to experiment with otherwise-unrealistic cycles.

But then again, the 6-10 hour blocks we're acclimated to may be so deeply engrained that our health would face consequences in any other situation.

If scientific validity were our lone motivation, than yes, it would make sense to ignore these "slippery concepts," as you describe. But this is not the case. I, for one, dread the mechanization of human behavior, even if it may seem accurate. The same goes for others, too. In general, people will not reduced themselves to mere cause and effect; they want to exist as more than than.

Having verifiable evidence against my beliefs means nothing, because my intention is not factuality. That's why creationism and evolution may coexist in the theologians mind. And that's why the utilitarian ideology will never become widespread.

The sciences are valuable in all tangible senses, but these "models," as you describe, are just that - models. And I feel no obligation to model my existence. Honestly, I prefer not to understand myself. Life's more amusing while unpredictable.

From my perspective, the "conversation > pitch" line is key. I love walking around, talking to people, and watching in awe as they excitedly demo their hacks. But it's pretty irritating when everyone tries to sell eachother their apps.

For that reason, I’m a fan of the science fair-style expo. It has less incentive for self-aggrandizement compared to onstage presentations. Hackers can be more genuine/playful without that single, high-tension Demo-athon pitch.

But then again, I have no idea how difficult science fair-style events are to coordinate. I’ve never organized a hackathon.