Indeed, +1. I was the same though with a TI-83 instead. I had to get good at hiding the calculator under the desk in non-math classes because the English teacher (for example) would press me on "why do you need a calculator for English class?"
I'm kicking myself for not saving the game code I wrote for some of those early games. They weren't very good, but I'd love to see the code, despite the horrifying spaghetti that it was.
Almost identical boat here. Had a borrowed TI-83, freshman year wrote 2048 && 1/2 of chess with only knowing basic variable usage, if, goto, and matrix indexing. Found out about actual loops and the ability to call a basic program from another latter.
Ah I was a few years later on the TI-86. Around 1999.
Between this, and SNES emulation (searching memory for values and adjusting things to see how they'd affect the game), I was destined for computer science.
That was me. Algebra clicked for me so I found the pace of the class to be slow. Ended up creating a few programs to solve tedious things like the quadratic formula incrementally while displaying the intermediate steps so I could write them down on tests.
Authoring programs using the buttons on the calculator was not fun.
Most teachers were not good at checking this. There was an archive mechanism which would compress the file and IIRC, prevent it from showing up in the program list. You could of course just unarchive it.
Even though I never cheated, I never wanted my programs to get erased... I just created an image of the "memory erased" screen and showed that to the teachers.
Absolutely! It started with MENU() text adventure games and then got to drawing custom UIs with DRAW(). iirc, you could get small text by using TEXT() in the DRAW() command. The specifics might be wrong on that one though!
And many of the people I knew who went on to become real incredible software devs got tired of the limitations of basic and went to ASM. My friend and I started building (and selling) graphlink cables made from old printer parallel cables, mainly for the ASM hackers. We even sold them with a warranty!
Same. I even convinced my mom to buy me a transfer cable so I could distribute my programs to my classmates. I was the "plug" for a brief time. Probably my closest taste of being "popular". It was nice.
I ended up building my own by "repurposing" and old printer parallel cable that my dad wasn't using. He wasn't thrilled about that, but seemed a little bit proud at what I did with it.
I eventually made enough money from "donations" from people to buy a proper cable, which did improve my DX quite a bit. The hacked up parallel cable wasn't the most reliable...
How is it a reasonable belief that a highly complex entity beyond our comprehension is a deterministic machine? Aren't deterministic machines simply the limit of our knowledge for now?
Except the human mind isn't at all just "software". If the human brain is deterministic, nothing is not.
The human brain doesn't have "a lot of" inputs, but rather infinite inputs. Cosmic rays, (self-emitted) electromagnetic fields, bacterial/viral activity, nutrition, genetics, epigenetics, immunity, cellular function ... all these things effect a mind. There is homeostasis, but that's not like error correction in silicon computation. Neurons do have excitation thresholds which are somewhat digital, but they are embedded in analog signaling and interference.
Row-hammer-like interference is a normal state of affairs for the brain. You cannot core-dump a mind. Measurements will change its state since it's inherently linked to the state of its matter. You could halt an LLM and predict its state the next cycle going by the program's logic. Or you could halt it, copy the state and get two identical instances. To clone a brain, you likely need to halt time itself.
Semantics aside, there is clearly a different deterministicness.
> The human brain doesn't have "a lot of" inputs, but rather infinite inputs.
That's not true though. It's 'a lot', not infinite. Not everything affects the output that our brain produces.
As far as we're currently aware the brain IS deterministic. If you were able to perfectly duplicate a brain and it's environment/state, the resulting output of that brain will always be the same.
> Not everything affects the output that our brain produces.
It responds to EM fields...so yeah, basically infinite.
> If you were able to perfectly duplicate a brain and it's environment/state
Big if. As I said, if the brain is deterministic, everything is. And then it's a meaningless discriminator. I already explained why I think you can't duplicate the state/environment perfectly.
How does it work if this is under the creative commons license? Can 3rd parties sell this controller per the model? Other 3rd party vendors got around this by making a very minor change.
It's just the external topology so it's really only going to be useful for making things that attach to the controller (skins, mounts, accessibility adapters, etc) or just toy models. Valve asks you to contact them if you want to sell an accessory using this model.
You could use the shape of the controller, but I don't think that is really giving much of an advantage to third party manufacturers. Scanning the shape of the controller and creating a clone with that shape is the easiest part of creating a generic competitor.
They just want you to eat your lunch, not to ask stupid questions about whether it was ethically sourced or how much rat milk is in that sauce.
It is also kind of interesting that they couldn’t get a single journalist from the OG Politico staff to put one of their names under it. So this is basically pushing "Die Welt" content into the English-speaking / US hemisphere disguised under the Politico brand label.
The only person in relation to Politico is the illustrator who, at least for me, added her own little detail of artistic protest by colouring the nails of the man in the picture, who eerily looks like Doepfner while leaving his toenails out and absolutely half-assing the fires.
Something the ultra-conservative chief doofus would rage about if he actually read the shit his staff writes and not just the metrics.
Lennart Pfahler and Philipp Woldin are reporters for WELT. Alexander Dinger is WELT’s investigations editor.
I didn’t see that disclaimer the first time I read the article, but it’s kind of a statement by itself, they are distancing this clearly from Politico staff-written content.
Why is that NaN handling sensible? I don't think it makes sense to say log(-1) equals log(-2). Mathematically it isn't true and your implementation would say it's true only because of limitations in IEEE754.
Lots of bad advice. Using unsigned for normal integers when you know they will be positive does worse for optimization, not better. Also for (;;) {} is convention because older compilers would give warnings with while (1)
Tried it and realized it was gimped compared to the Linux tools it was trying to emulate. Monopolies will always be playing catchup with basic functionalities people have done for free because they make sense.
reply