🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

In case anyone's interested, I just posted a run-down of simple C/C++ test frameworks that'll build for real-mode DOS with Open Watcom C/C++ 1.9, plus preliminary research for how to do functional testing on a DOS program.

http://blog.ssokolow.com/archives/2020/10/31/automated-testing-for-open-watcom-c-c-and-dos/

#dos #retrocomputing #c

what would you say is something that you thing think is a comman human vulnerablilty

@QueenRamonda

While I'm no trump fan by any means, holy hell the lies and propaganda in this post...

This post right here is the danger of parroting claims from commercially motivated partisan sources without actually doing the research yourself. Sadly most of what you just said, and the picture painted overall, is largely a fiction designed to manipulate people with disinformation to support a political agenda (in this case support for democrats)... the reality is very different when one does some actual research, as it usually is on any side.

First lets take the most glaring lie in this post:

> ...passed with the unanimous support of the Dems and opposed only by Republicans.

Not only is this untrue but in fact the majority of the opposition came from the ''democrats'' not republicans. The actual tally of votes for the First Step Act across congress were as follows:

* Democrats: 181 for 57 against (that is 76% for)
* Republicans: 264 for 14 against (95% for)

Not only did the republicans support the bill more so than democrats but by a pretty huge margin. Which makes the whole "opposed only by republicans" not just a flat out lie, but, with the reverse being true, very clear propaganda.

The other point to address is this bit:

> ..a veto-proof majority passed..

While you are certainly correct its a veto-proof majority the devil is in the details. Trump supported the bill **before** it went to vote. His support therefore is irrelevant to the fact that it had a veto-proof majority as he had supported it long before we knew it would be a veto-proof majority.

In fact since he showed support for the bill prior to a vote one could argue that he helped, at least among republicans, secure more votes than it might have otherwise received. So the very reason it got enough support to have a veto-proof majority is in part due to the efforts of Trump to show his support for the bill in the first place.

So while this point isnt exactly a lie, it is horribly dishonest to frame it as if it is somehow suggestive that his support is insincere or otherwise a strike against trump.

@cy @freemo @arteteco

I haven't read the whole thread, but I just wanted to reply to:

> Yes, almost everyone has some influence over their financial situation, and that influence is tiny

I don't know about the "tiny" part. I have some anecdotal experience with seeing two different people become millionaires independently (one relative, one friend), and taking up their whole family up with them, after being extremely poor people literally selling cheap clothes on the sidewalk to afford food at one point (both of them did that for some weird cosmic coincidental reason).

Both people had starkly different behavior from anyone around them; mainly extreme risk taking, and very strong workaholism. And I mean that in a very pronounced way, like, take for example the relative, whom I know more about. While other poor family members were trying to "find a job" or "wait for the next paycheck", or whatever, that guy was literally sneaking up to war-torn countries to organize shipments of goods and drive them under direct artillery fire. Every venture that person organized was totally funded by someone else, he would talk to many people, and convince them to fund the craziest of ideas, and on many occasions traveled to other countries without having the money to come back. He got shot at least one time. He was attacked with bats by some Ukrainian mafias at some other point. At his height he owned a manufacturing company of a few thousand employees in China, which he founded himself to produce goods which he sold to his home country, and its neighbors. He had many branches around the world, a handful of villas, and a bunch of land here and there.

I don't know how much of that is inherent personal traits, how much of it conscious change. I know, from older relatives, that this person was never like that initially, and his personality was very different up to some point where he kinda changed. I don't know how he changed though.

Personally, I've also seen huge changes in my material condition directly tied to changes in mindset and "hard-work" (I kinda hate the term). And I was sure to note that the mindset changes came first (often introduced by meeting people who became "my role model", but mostly through the internet and books tbh), and it caused me to initiate the exploration in search of chances, and the exploitation of chances found.

Well, but here's the kicker, both of those people are no longer millionaires, both of them lost most of their wealth. One to the financial crisis of 2008, and one to the current Covid-19 pandemic.

Such anecdotes seem to me to show that "everyone has HUGE influence over their financial situation", but also "The world can Completely Destroy You, in a blink of an eye". It seems to be possible to explain this overall with the "the higher the risk, the higher the reward" kinda thing. And don't just skim over the "risk" part. The other family members who remained relatively poor never took such massive risks, but they never faced "millions of dollars in debt and shot in the chest by some random mafia" either. Low risk, low reward.

Of course this is all anecdotal evidence, and it's not enough for ultimate conclusions. So take of it what you will. I think that there are tons of outside factors, but it's one's own choice whether to optimize for safety and stability, or to optimize for risk taking and opportunity. Choose the wrong thing to optimize for, at the wrong time, and you're dead. And you can't know for certain what the wrong time is.

Ain't life so much fun /s

Does anyone consider #haskell to be their most productive language? Tracing and debugging other people's code happens to be the most common thing I do (because writing expressive, stable, non-leaky abstractions is hard), but it's like pulling teeth in Haskell. If I understand correctly, I need to map into an IO monad (or whatever the hell you call it) just to print out some value in a function: how do you get anything done this way?

@freemo @math
Oh, phew. I thought Volts was doing far worse than pushing Amps.

@amerika
Mate, taxonomy is complex already as it is, why go against the established names just for the sake of it?
please refer to the ICZN code, article 45 (regarding specific and subspecific nomenclature)

https://code.iczn.org/species-group-nominal-taxa-and-their-names/article-45-the-species-group/

breed is only used for domestic animals that went through selective breeding - doesn't have any taxonomic value

@mystik @TradeMinister @freemo @manarock

Welcome to the math group everyone. Keep it civil and feel free to ask or chat about anything math.

Greetings!

In short, I am posting 3 documents, all geared towards a solution for the P versus NP problem.

The mathematics that governs the official solution has been presented to, and was subsequently endorsed by two separate mathematics journal editors.

Now I am presenting the mathematics to the public, and I got the suggestion to post here.

The reasoning behind three documents, is one is the official proof, which is written for professional mathematicians, and is very brief concerning certain ideas, and may not be obvious to even those with a strong mathematical background.

The next, is a version official proof, that obviates every point made in the official proof, and is much more verbose. It's a complete proof, and intended for those with a very strong mathematical background. It could be called properly the extended version of the official proof.

The other document is a basic mathematical overview, that is intended for anyone to read, so they can understand the mathematics that governs the solution.

It is chalk full of new mathematics, and has gotten great reviews from the readers I have thus far had. It is intended to be very informative for anyone with the slightest semblance of a mathematical background, and who wants to understand the official proof, and why and how it resolves the problem.

Any reviews and comments from the present community will be read.

I hope every well intended person has a great day. Likewise, enjoys reading the articles.

Basic mathematical overview of proof:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Y-GZKJbZKiAcqFm2ewdxX__PzyVpmNy1/view?usp=sharing

Official proof:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Q_LxHjsQgv7b3RrWnu7Jer23Jw1O7ZUc/view

Extended proof:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lhAILS01c7ROzcP2IcjwyiClsgchV8Pu/view?usp=sharing

@freemo

@amerika

Not really. Cultivar is only used for plants and is intended for plants that underwent an artificial selection for human use. They do not have to have significant genetic diversity as the term has a very applied meaning, so you jest need the phenotype to be different to give the "cultivar" status.

Subspecies is more general, you don't usually use it for artificially selected organisms.

There is a lot of debate on where to set the line, and the last word is by convention always the one of the ICZN (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

This as far as science is involved. "Race", for example, is not a valid taxonomic group, as it's mainly use for applied zootechnical reasons (such as milk cows, or egg hens, even selected dogs), and shouldn't be used outside of that field

@mystik @TradeMinister @freemo @manarock