simplotek

> Does anyone know of an example of a simple physical system where eigenvalues have a physical interpretation?

Yep, vibration modes. Vibration frequencies represent their eigenvalues while the shape that the structural system exhibits when subjected to said vibration corresponds to it's eigenvector.

If a structural system is modelled as a linear elastic system it's possible to apply an eigendecomposition of that system and represent it in terms of linear combinations of it's vibration modes/eigenvector, and consequently we can get very accurate representations by using only a hand-full of these eigenvectors.

You know swing sets? We would start to swing back and forth just by moving our legs in a particular frwquencey, and without much effort we could move more and more? It turns out the frequency we moved our legs was the system's vibration frequency/eigenvalue for the vibration modes/eigenvector representing the we swinging back and forth.

> I don't get the complaint, there are flaws, it could have been much MUCH worse.

I find it amusing that after half a century of existence and powering the world's IT infrastructure, suddenly some illuminated individual felt entitled to claim they alone found problems that they alone can fix.

> This applies very much to C as the universal ABI. It's common to see programs written in a combination of languages who interface with each other using a C ABI even though none of those languages is itself C. And, for better worse, it's really hard to change this because while components are easily swapped out, moving an interface is hard because you have to simultaneously fix every component that uses that interface.

I'd go with the glass half full point of view. This has to do with fixing stuff that ain't broken. This has everything to do with developers not wanting to go the Java route and reinvent the wheel and have to reimplements all basic functionalities under the sun. They just target C in particular or in some cases POSIX and they are up and running in no time, reusing everything under the sun with minimal work.

> Ironic that Steve Klabnik jumped in on the ridiculing, when he a) Complains all the time about people mocking Rust, and b) supported the various "rewrite in Rust for no good reason" projects.

To be fair, this tweet was close to a decade ago, and Steve Klabnik posted an apology at the time.

People do make mistakes from time to time, and Twitter is prone to post unfiltered brainfarts.

> I know it's not a simple answer, but how would you embed checks to flag or highlight potentially incorrect results to the user?

For starters, some problems do have analytical solutions. Yo can compare a FEM model of these problems with the known analytical solution and see if it's close enough or not. One of them is the elasto-plastic plate with a hole.

You can also run unit tests at the element level.

Sorry but all you say in you post is a bunch of baseless personal assertions pushing a specific personal political take that has no substance or credibility.

The Ford F150 is no niche product. It's the most popular car in all US states except in 5 or 6 states. According to some sources , "the vast majority of these new trucks are [sold] in large and medium-sized cities."

https://hedgescompany.com/blog/2018/10/pickup-truck-owner-de...

So unless you want to claim that white males living in large urban centers from all corners o the US are not Twitter's demographics, your view is baseless and completely detached from reality.

But be my guest and point out the best source you used to source your claim.

And lastly:

https://marketing.twitter.com/en/success-stories/ford-f150-l...

Hard to explain, isn't it?

> This is a very funny way of thinking which gets reality backwards. Corporate brands go where user eyeballs are.

This is a rather naive and uninformed take. Here's yesterday's tweet of the day, where a top marketer called Elon Musk on his bullshit conspiracy theory.

https://twitter.com/LouPas/status/1588599808587345921

> Would you share some insight on why Intel failed at making EUV work? Gelsinger said on a podcast (Decoder) recently that in fact they fought it.

A cursory Google search results in multiple search hits from recent news pieces announcing Intel buying their EUV kits from ASML.

If Intel is handing out small fortunes to ASML to deliver a machine that in the past Intel was expected to develop in-house, that does not sound like a success story.

Here's a Reddit thread on the topic:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AMD_Stock/comments/miar30/why_is_in...

> So because some idiot somewhere wrote a 100 assertion unit test we should ban anyone from writing even 2 assertions in one test?

You're falling prey to slippery slope fallacy, which at best is specious reasoning.

The rationale is easy to understand. Running 100 assertions in a single test renders tests unusable. Running 10 assertions suffers from the same problem. Test sets are user-friendly if they dump a single specific error message for a single specific failed assertion, thus allowing developers to quickly pinpoint root causes by simply glancing through the test logs.

Arguing whether two or three or five assertions should be banned misses the whole point and completely ignores the root cause that led to this guideline.

> Showing someone the door" is just indicating that you would like them to leave. How much authority do you need to do this?

Not really.

I have no right to show you the door at the local library or cinema or car wash or local cafe, or at your own home. At most, that lies in the right to property,which only applies to things I personally own. Consequently, in a free and open society "showing someone the door" is a right that's only at the reach of private property owners or people mandated by said owners to manage some aspect of it.

Even then, that right to "show someone the door" because you don't like their opinions is not all powerful and is limited in some jurisdictions which also recognize the right to equality and non-discrimination. Think about it for a second: how can you have a free and open society if you do not have tolerance?

> It's surprising people are arguing about this. That fact alone shows that lots of developers don't understand the relationship between L1/L2 cache, data access patterns, and how prefetching works.

Your misconception lies in the assumption that the only conceivable use case is iterating over a preallocated data structure to do read-only operations.

Once you add real world usages, with CRUD operations involving memory allocations/reallocations then your misconception about cache crumbles, and you start to understand why "people are arguing over this".

> Many of the STL containers in MSVC are incredibly cursed. Even std::vector is implemented in such a weird way, that you can't debug it easily with any debugger other than Visual Studio. And it's incredibly slow on Debug mode, up to the point that it's unusable... (Because of these reasons I just switched to using my own Vector<T> class recently)

Here's a link to an old HN discussion that offers some insight on the performance of MSVC's STL in debug.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18939260

The "cursed" keyword hand-waves over the problem and suggests it originates in the acritical propagation of ignorant beliefs. Sometimes clarifying these is just a Google search away.

Thanks for referring to the article. Great read!

> Too bad that they went all political.

Since when have RATM ever been anything other than highly political?

Have you ever paid attention to their lyrics from back in the day?

> In this scenario, since your input energy is basically free, more storage capacity = more money, and switching to clay could triple your effective capacity.

That's all fine and dandy, but the whole point is that projects are evaluated in terms of money and not joules. This means that if a material like clay is , as you claim, 3 times more efficient but ends up costing twice or more to replace and more to maintain, you are in reality looking at a prospective best-case scenario that lies somewhere significant losses or irrelevant gains.

Meanwhile, building the exact same sand-based prototype right next to the original one would literally double the capacity at a far smaller cost.

People want to get warm, not discuss whether clay or sand pack as much heat. Half the world could not care less about what goes into AA batteries.

Projects are evaluated in financial and economical terms. It matters nothing if there's a theoretical possibility that some other material or design is more efficient, if it's savings are irrelevant. The world rides Volkswagens, not Formula 1 cars.

> It didn't end in 1976, though.. it's creation continues to this day.

Legacy projects tend to reflect the state of the art of the time they started, which reflects on aspects such as software architecture, technologies, and more importantly the overall technical commitment and technical debt which makes it hard or practically impossible to fix past wrongs or replace subpar technologies with better options.

Emacs started out in a time when Lisp was the only game in town in terms of dynamic interpreted languages. That's perfectly fine. Would the same people stick with Lisp in a time when, say, the likes of Python and JavaScript and Node.js and Ruby and .NET exist?

> Programming languages aren't just for machines to execute. There are for humans to communicate and collaborate. There are technical concerns of course, but these are secondary to social, economical and aesthetic factors or simply luck.

You're missing the whole point. These non-technical aspects rear their heads in real-world projects, and perhaps are more critical than technical ones. If a language is subpart in its non-technical aspects, developers are very quick to replace them with languages that are better.

And as the OP pointed out, Lisp is rarely seen or showcased in real-world projects.

Why is that?

> High-speed Data cap Pick one

Only if you've been scammed by your service provider, which advertised services that they are not able to provide.

I don't recall the last ISP I subscribed to in the past decade which was not high-speed or imposed a data cap.

> Not sure about the math here, but it is surely cheaper to build a bigger tank with crappy sand than a smaller one with more expensive clay.

It's also interesting that the sand is heated with energy generated from wind turbines and solar panels, which means that as long as enough energy is being thrown into the thermal capacitor, it will heat up with little cost. From this point onward, it's an economics problem. Either money is thrown at the efficiency of these heating capacitors, which brings at most small gains, or money is thrown in building additional storage capacity for cheap along with increasing how much energy is fed into the system. Would it be more cost effective in replacing sand with more efficient materials, or spend the money in, say, another cheap thermal energy source?

> Those outside of the US who subscribe to this ideal seem heavily influenced by US culture in my experience. I'm not aware of non-US sources of the idea.

No, not at all. There are plenty of countries who go to greater lengths to protect their individual rights without the US even registering as a suggested influence. Most countries which managed to transition away from authoritarian oppressive regimes did grew political antibodies to ensure the right to freely express your ideas without being subjected to persecution as it happened in the not so distant past.

> (...) not being able to apply consequences to speech is itself curtailing your speech,(...)

No, not really.

Your right to speech isn't infringed if someone does not share your personal opinion. You're always able to express your mind about how profoundly you disagree or how wrong you feel everyone around you is.

What you cannot do is go around strong-arming people to shut up or stop expressing ideas you don't share. That is not a way to protect your right to free speech. That's just fascism 101.

> When you are as rich and powerful as Elon Musk, you usually get away with your own stupidity and it will ultimately turn to your benefits no matter what.

I'm yet to see how that idiotic "pedo guy" episode turns out to benefit Elon Musk.

> Apparently, at Twitter, you don't.

Twitter is itching to shed people any way they can, so the problem lies elsewhere.

> No one is saying you can't be critical of your own employer. They are saying there are repercussions to being critical and loss of employment is a common one which should be expected.

Why do you feel that the expected outcome of being critical is being punished instead of addressing the root causes of these issues? I mean how do you expect problems to be pointed out and addressed?

> It's not "Zig spam" to ask (...)

It is Zig spam, not because of the discussion or the question or the topic of the time of day. It's Zig spam because it's yet another Zig post among the barrage of Zig posts desperately shoe-horning offtopic gratuitous references to Zig. It's tiring and adds nothing to any discussion.

If you feel that strongly about the need to promote Zig, submit discussions. Please don't spam each and any top submission with these gratuitous references.

> Instead of being petulant about it, you could ignore it and move o

Not wanting to see gratuitous self-promoting spam degrading the signal/noise ratio of an otherwise interesting discussion is hardly petulance. Replace any Zig reference shoe-horned into this discussion with, say, Java, and see if you have any point.

Cargo cult programming has zero to do with religion or what features ship and do not ship with a standard library. Please read the wiki page you're trying to quote before quoting it.

> In a conversation about languages with this kind of C interop

It's not. It's a discussion about "the C compiler built into the Digital Mars D compiler".

Please stop with all the Zig spam.

Thank you for putting in the effort to benchmark and quantify performance. There is nothing like verifiable numbers to drive a discussion on performance improvements and marketing.

> Do you plan on giving Zig a try? (They seem to be doing a lot right.)

All this Zig spam is getting very tiring.