Perl 6 - the future is here, just unevenly distributed

IRC log for #rosettacode, 2014-07-26

| Channels | #rosettacode index | Today | | Search | Google Search | Plain-Text | summary

All times shown according to UTC.

Time Nick Message
02:05 Util joined #rosettacode
04:03 ventica_desktop joined #rosettacode
04:32 mwn3d joined #rosettacode
05:06 mwn3d joined #rosettacode
10:42 raj1991raj joined #rosettacode
10:43 rajrajraj is anyone alive here "P
10:54 dkordic rajrajraj: Brains...
10:55 rajrajraj dkordic: hmmm
10:55 rajrajraj i need an explanation for this http://rosettacode.org/wiki/So​rting_algorithms/Cycle_sort#C
10:59 * dkordic processing...
11:02 * rajrajraj waiting here
11:04 rajrajraj ping me if you are ready
11:04 rajrajraj when*
11:07 ttmrichter What's the explanation required?
11:09 rajrajraj ttmrichter: the "finding cycle" part, i am unable to figure out, how is it done
11:09 ttmrichter Did you read the linked Wikipedia article?
11:11 rajrajraj ttmrichter: i am reading it's code now
13:58 Koen_ joined #rosettacode
14:10 kuzetsa is it more correct to say 16 exabytes or 18?
14:10 kuzetsa 18446744073709551616 bytes
14:10 kuzetsa 16 * 1024 * 1024 * 1024 * 1024 * 1024 * 1024
14:11 kuzetsa like as an example -- for ram, nobody says 4.2 gigabytes for 4294967296, they just call that 4 gigabytes
14:39 kpreid joined #rosettacode
14:48 dkordic kuzetsa: 16EiB.  4GiB = 4,294,967,296B.
14:48 dkordic 4GB = 4,000,000,000B.
15:02 ttmrichter dkordic: ... what?
15:02 ttmrichter The only people who call 4,000,000,000 bytes "4GB" are hard disk manufacturers (and equivalent like thumb drive makers, etc.).
15:03 ttmrichter The rest of the computing world calls that "fraud".
15:04 ttmrichter Yes, the IEC has tried to foist the MB/MiB/GB/GiB stuff on the world, but that hasn't really caught on ... except, as I said, the hard drive world where they can sell less space as if it were more.
15:04 ttmrichter (Then you have the "unformatted capacity" gag on top of that.)
15:07 kuzetsa dkordic: yeah, I found out abuot the GiB thing recently
15:07 kuzetsa (like today... just now, within a few minutes of asking in here)
15:08 kuzetsa I'd love to say I have a valid argument against its usage, but apparently it's adopted by IEC and NIST -- http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html (before today, I really didn't know)
15:09 kuzetsa All I'm certain of, is that I'm uncomfortable writing "exbi" like a <pejorative expletive> in my docs... mostly because my pedantry and gramatical prescriptivism doesn't allow for such changes in my vocabulary as using an exotic non-SI prefix
15:10 mwn3d1 joined #rosettacode
15:10 ttmrichter kuzetsa: The ICE adopted it, but nobody really uses it.
15:10 ttmrichter IEC.
15:10 ttmrichter Buggered fingers!
15:10 ttmrichter BUTTERED fingers!
15:11 ttmrichter When you buy RAM, it's sold in multiples of 1024 ... and as MB, GB, etc.  Not as MiB, GiB, et al.
15:11 kuzetsa indeed
15:11 * kuzetsa clears throat
15:11 kuzetsa *ahem* --- "I do what I want"
15:11 ttmrichter The only people who use the MiB/GiB/EiB/etc. thing are, as far as I can tell, government contractors.  Because they have to.
15:12 * kuzetsa makes duck face, and writes "17 exubytes" in the docs, because why not
15:13 ttmrichter Or put out the full number.
15:13 ttmrichter And hope you didn't make a transcription error. :D
15:13 dkordic kuzetsa: I would simply write 2^18.
15:13 ttmrichter "OK, so allocate 4294857296 bytes."
15:14 kuzetsa for good measure, a footnote explaining that an 17 exubytes is somewhere between 18 and 19 gigabytes, or exactly 16 exbibytes
15:14 kuzetsa dkordic: you mean 2^64?
15:14 dkordic ttmrichter: I would rather define GiB macro.
15:15 dkordic kuzetsa: That was Your first test :) .
15:16 kuzetsa I could just write 16 exbibtytes, or maybe just be silly and put "big fat cow made of solid, thick, juicy data" since I can't take the IEC exbi prefix seriously AT ALL
15:16 dkordic Why not?
15:16 dkordic 16EiB
15:17 kuzetsa I dunno... some people feel funny about exploiting animals though
15:17 kuzetsa that's still no excuse to write EiB like a <pejorative expletive>
15:18 kuzetsa http://xkcd.com/1167/ <-- this is really how I feel about the whole thing: 17 exubytes really might be the route I go with it
15:18 fedaykin "xkcd: Star Trek into Darkness"
15:19 dkordic Then 2^32 instead of 4MiB.
15:20 kuzetsa dkordic: you obviously mean 4 GiB or 2^22, or I forgot how log2 works suddenly and I'm talking out my backside again :(
15:22 dkordic kuzetsa: Yes I made mistake yet again, but You get the idea.
15:22 kuzetsa dkordic: FWIW, I suspect your error above with 10^18 versus 2^18 was what happened
15:23 dkordic kuzetsa: Exactly.
15:23 kuzetsa 10^18 is a legitimate SI exa prefix
15:23 kuzetsa ok then, I've decided on 17 exubytes with a humorous footnote :)
15:24 kuzetsa this documentation choice is a sign that I sholdn't be maintaining this package any more, or that someone else who is probably less neurotic needs to write the docs
15:25 dkordic Which package?
15:25 kuzetsa your mom
15:25 kuzetsa :(
15:26 kuzetsa sorry... it's vaporware for some company or other whose NDA I'm bound by
15:28 kuzetsa they're probably not gonna care TOO much what humor I stick in the docs so long as it's for things which are unlikely to ever actually be relevant within the product lifecycle
15:29 kuzetsa ... besides, if they ever need to manipulate more than 16EiB, I'll probably not want to work on supporting their stuff anymore anyway
15:44 mwn3d joined #rosettacode
15:59 ivanshmakov ttmrichter: In communications, 1 MB/s also generally means 1 000 000 bytes/s. Basically, “MB” means 2²⁰ /only/ when some kind of “address space” (such as the processor’s address bus) is considered.
15:59 ivanshmakov And then, what about these good old 1.44 MB floppies?…
16:00 ivanshmakov (With “MB” understood to mean 2000 sectors of 512 bytes each, or 1000 KiB.)
16:02 ivanshmakov The GNU folks have more or less fully adopted the [KMGTE]iB convention, BTW. (If only could they spell “X window” without a trailing ‘s’ in Emacs docstrings…)
16:09 kuzetsa ivanshmakov: that's not a major issue though, nobody uses emacs for real work
16:23 ivanshmakov kuzetsa: … Except for those who do.
16:24 ivanshmakov Personally, I use Emacs for more or less anything, ranging from editing Wikipedia, to sending mail, to participating on IRC, like, right now.
16:27 kuzetsa yeah I suppose
16:30 kuzetsa though seeing as my point was about how I haven't known any emacs users who like doing things in a mainstream way, your argument for using emacs in unorthodox ways seems to just make my case that much stronger
16:31 ivanshmakov I’d use Emacs for Rosetta Code, too, but I have some reservations regarding the GNU FDL license employed there. As for Wikipedia, now that the so-called “paid contribution disclosure policy” came into effect across all the WMF projects, I’m probably going to cease contributing to them just as well.
16:31 kuzetsa I didn't really qualify "real work" as being "effective, and able to be churned out en-masse by cheap entry-level first year programmers" though
16:31 ivanshmakov Sans the Commons, naturally, given that they took the liberty to “opt out.”
16:35 ivanshmakov kuzetsa: To be honest, I don’t know what’s meant by “real work” above, and as of yet unsure if it’s something I should care about.
16:35 ttmrichter Paid contribution disclosure policy?
16:36 kuzetsa you lost me
16:36 kuzetsa all I meant was that the "emacs docstrings" you referenced above seemed about as irrelevant as my choice to use 17 exubytes with a silly footnote explaining and clarifying what value I meant
16:38 ttmrichter OK, I'm curious.
16:38 kuzetsa emacs isn't very relevant to the future path and direction of software development technologies and design philosophies
16:38 ttmrichter Looking at the Wikipedia paid contribution policy, I'm wondering what the objections are that aren't basically "but I don't want to let people know I'm a shill!".
16:39 kuzetsa what?
16:39 kuzetsa are you talking about wikipedia, rosettacode, or emacs right now?
16:39 ttmrichter kuzetsa: I'm commenting on ivanshmakov's thing above about Wikipedia.
16:40 kuzetsa oh whoops
16:40 kuzetsa my dyslexia is acting up
16:40 ttmrichter Where he said he'd stop contributing because of the "Paid contributions without disclosure" clause.
16:40 kuzetsa ttmrichter and ivanshmakov look the same to me
16:40 kuzetsa sorry, I was confused
16:40 kuzetsa didn't realize it was 2 people talking
16:40 not-ivanshmakov OK, this should make it clearer.  :D
16:40 kuzetsa :(
16:41 * ttmrichter whistles innocently.
16:41 * kuzetsa breaks wind triumphantly
16:41 kuzetsa I had a bean yesterday
16:41 kuzetsa O_O
16:43 kuzetsa (no, really... I finished the rest of the leftover goulash from thursday's dinner)
16:45 kuzetsa http://crystalandcomp.com/​2011/11/four-bean-goulash/ <-- similar to that, except only had black beans and corn in it (and also with a different tomato base than the canned tomatoes) ... and it was vegetarian using a local brand called "don't have a cow"
16:45 fedaykin "Four Bean Goulash | CrystalandComp.com" http://rldn.net/CXJ
16:45 ivanshmakov ttmrichter: It’s not just Wikipedia, – it applies to projects like Wikibooks as well.
16:45 kuzetsa also a different pasta than elbow macaroni
16:46 ivanshmakov ttmrichter: Consider that I’m paid for contributing to https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/A​lgorithm_Implementation/Sorting.
16:46 ttmrichter ivanshmakov: And?  I'm still not sure what the objection is.
16:46 ttmrichter If you're paid to write an article, what's the objection to having that noted?
16:47 kuzetsa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kuzetsa <-- I just release all rights to my contributions and leave it at that :)
16:47 fedaykin "User:Kuzetsa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"
16:48 ivanshmakov ttmrichter: It’s not about objecting to noting, it’s rather about giving the Foundation the legal right to sue me if I didn’t note that I’m being paid.
16:48 ttmrichter You mean if you used their facilities against their explicit terms of use?
16:48 ttmrichter I'm still not seeing the issue.
16:48 ivanshmakov ttmrichter: Do I need to identify my client(s) when I contribute to Rosetta Code, BTW?
16:49 ttmrichter I have no idea.
16:49 ttmrichter I'm not an admin.
16:49 ivanshmakov ttmrichter: That was /not/ part of their ToU just about a month and a half ago.
16:49 ttmrichter So presumably anything you wrote before a month and a half ago doesn't have to be noted.
16:49 ttmrichter (Generally terms of use can't legally be made retroactive.)
16:50 ivanshmakov ttmrichter: Yes. And now I guess I’ll quit rather than comply.
16:50 ttmrichter Which is your choice, naturally, but one I find pretty bizarre.
16:51 lambdabot joined #rosettacode
16:52 ivanshmakov ttmrichter: FTR, some of my objections are at https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikiboo​ks:Reading_room/Proposals#Alternative​_paid_contribution_disclosure_policy.
16:52 ivanshmakov (Way too long to repeat all of them here.)
16:52 kuzetsa IANAL... but I know some jurisdictions have a test regarding copyright and license infringement whereby "somehow profiting from the alleged infringement" is considered a requirement before a legal action can be taken
16:52 ivanshmakov kuzetsa: ? This ToU amendment has nothing to do with copyright.
16:53 kuzetsa hmm?
16:53 kuzetsa ivanshmakov: aren't you talking about rosettacode contributions?
16:53 ivanshmakov kuzetsa: Mostly about contributions to WMF projects, actually,
16:53 kuzetsa oh
16:54 kuzetsa I didn't realize rosettacode was WMF-sponsored (I just thought it ran on mediawiki engine) ... neat :)
16:54 ivanshmakov kuzetsa: It’s not.
16:54 kuzetsa oh
16:54 kuzetsa so you're off-topic & ranting about your personal ideology?
16:55 ivanshmakov kuzetsa: Yes.
16:55 kuzetsa thanks for clearing that up
16:55 ttmrichter https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/FAQ_o​n_paid_contributions_without_disclosure#What_does_.E2.80.9Ccompensation.E2.80.9D_mean.3F
16:55 fedaykin "Terms of use/FAQ on paid contributions without disclosure - Meta" http://rldn.net/3pR
16:55 ttmrichter Money.  Goods.  Services.
16:55 ttmrichter Course credit is none of those.
16:56 ivanshmakov ttmrichter: Here in Russia, course credits is what makes you eligible to state-funded higher education.
16:56 ttmrichter And yet it is not money, it is not a good, it is not a service.
16:56 kuzetsa huh, fedaykin's script didn't include the #What_does_.E2.80.9Ccompensation.E2.80.9D_mean.3F in the shortened URL
16:56 ttmrichter These are three words that have very specific meadnings.
16:58 ivanshmakov ttmrichter: So, I’m safe as long as I get something which is not itself a good or money, but which I can exchange for either sometime later?
16:58 ivanshmakov ttmrichter: Did you notice that FAQ is not part of the ToU /legal/ text itself, BTW?
16:58 kuzetsa ivanshmakov: "course credits" can be legally seen as "documented experience"
16:59 kuzetsa "experience" (and the documentation of the accumulation of that experience) is not money
16:59 ivanshmakov kuzetsa: Yes, but one’s continued education depends on them. And FWIW, in Russia, education /is/ deemed a “service.”
17:00 kuzetsa though arguably, the documentation in itself is a good, and the process of recognizing and documenting the experience could arguably be a service
17:01 ivanshmakov (The contracts are rather explicit on what the higher education institutions provide, and that’s “educational services.”)
17:01 ivanshmakov kuzetsa: Here, it’s not just “arguably,” – it /legally/ is.
17:02 kuzetsa so you'
17:04 kuzetsa "to participate in the activity" for the "compensation" of credits in order to recieve this educational service?
17:07 kuzetsa hmm
17:08 ivanshmakov kuzetsa: Being an administrator of Russian Wikibooks, I’d rather welcome those working here on class assignments to identify their course. But I fail to see how effectively /forcing/ anyone to do so is going to make any good to the project.
17:08 kuzetsa it's only relevant if the people who give you these credits are asking you to edit a wikipedia article (or similar content elsewhere on WMF project website space or whatever) which explicitly talks about them
17:08 kuzetsa example: company X is paying you to edit an article about company X
17:09 ivanshmakov kuzetsa: There’s no “about them” in the ToU text itself. The FAQ leaves that uncovered, either.
17:09 kuzetsa no, the FAQ covers that
17:10 ivanshmakov kuzetsa: The FAQ covers the case when you’re paid by Company X to edit an article on Company X. But what if you’re paid by Company X to edit an article on Company Y – their competitor? I see nothing on that in the FAQ.
17:11 ivanshmakov kuzetsa: And what about if you’re paid by Company X to publish a manual on their product Z on Wikibooks? Or to answer questions on that product to the students learning it on Wikiversity?
17:11 kuzetsa hmm :/
17:11 kuzetsa "...your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which..."
17:11 kuzetsa ^ the actual terms of use
17:12 ivanshmakov kuzetsa: That’s my point: if I’m paid by anyone for putting pretty much /anything/ on a WMF project, – I should disclose that.
17:14 kuzetsa have you discussed this in any of the MFW channels here on freenode?
17:14 ivanshmakov kuzetsa: Could you please promise me some salted nuts for writing sorting algorithm in AVR assembler for Wikibooks? I’ll then have to disclose /that/ on my Wikibooks User: page!
17:14 ivanshmakov kuzetsa: I’ve participated in the very discussion that WMF started prior to making this amendment.
17:14 kuzetsa ivanshmakov: no, that's not in my preferred license model
17:15 ivanshmakov kuzetsa: ?
17:15 kuzetsa I don't pay in salted nuts
17:15 kuzetsa it's confusing
17:15 ivanshmakov kuzetsa: So is disclosing it.
17:15 kuzetsa what?
17:15 kuzetsa oh, you mean your own preference?
17:15 kuzetsa you have a preference against transparency?
17:16 kuzetsa the transparency (WRT paid contributions) policy is to prevent undisclosed conflicts of interest
17:16 ivanshmakov kuzetsa: Transparency has its place. But the amendment is rather about making transparent walls for one’s bathroom.
17:17 kuzetsa the policy doesn't discuss bathrooms
17:17 kuzetsa that's either a metaphor I don't understand, or you misread
17:17 ivanshmakov kuzetsa: The former.
17:17 kuzetsa please be more literal
17:18 kuzetsa please be direct and explicit, since I still don't understand what you're protesting against in the first place
17:19 ivanshmakov kuzetsa: It’s an unnecessary requirement. Moreover, it prevents undisclosed CoIs only when actually enforced, and there’re no efficient means for that.
17:19 kuzetsa uhm... ok then, so what specific harm or crisis of conscience or whatever is happening because of this policy?
17:21 ivanshmakov kuzetsa: The specific harm is that now when I’m recommending Wikiversity or some other WMF project for teachers and students, I have to note “but please be sure that you identify yourselves if editing the project is part of some contract, or classroom assignment, or something else like that.”
17:22 kuzetsa the WMF ToU contains langauge about "enforcement discretion" which pretty much covers the cases where no harm is happening by chosing NOT to pedantically use a broad interperetation of the terms which prevents people from contributing in a way which is not harmful
17:23 ivanshmakov kuzetsa: … Which means that I /also/ have to note “and be sure you ask your lawyer to read the ToU for you, because it’s not supposed to be read by mere mortals like us.”
17:25 ivanshmakov kuzetsa: Check my comment regarding “The One Hundred and First Law of Robotics” at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Te​rms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment, for instance.
17:32 kuzetsa uh
17:33 kuzetsa is this like a TL;DR argument, where "limited attention span" is used as a reason to simplify an otherwise good document?
17:33 kuzetsa ivanshmakov: that'
17:33 kuzetsa that's not a strong argument, so I hope that's not your point
17:34 ivanshmakov kuzetsa: Simplicity is not just about “limited attention spans.”
17:35 kuzetsa the 101st robot law is an argument about the attention span of a robot who might not retain extra programming and forget the initial core (1st) law
17:36 kuzetsa so either I misunderstood the metaphor, or you meant something else (if so, please clarify what you meant)
17:38 ivanshmakov kuzetsa: Sorry, I can only repeat what I’ve already stated in the discussion: “My point is that adding clauses to ToU isn’t something to be taken lightly: they come at a cost, – the cost of the time it takes for the community to read, understand, and (possibly) implement or enforce them. This proposal has no value, but it still has /cost./”
17:39 kuzetsa [13:25:47] <+ivanshmakov> kuzetsa: Check my comment regarding “The One Hundred and First Law of Robotics” at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Te​rms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment
17:40 kuzetsa ^ that
17:41 kuzetsa so you mean that your point is that a hypothetical "cost" due to TL;DR (attention span or otherwise) or some other hypothetical "cost" will reduce the value of the ToU?
17:41 kuzetsa hypothetical harm seems pretty impotent
17:43 kuzetsa with TL;DR issues, there's always the possibility someone else with a better attention span (or understanding, etc.) will come along and help clarify when there was an issue resulting from confusion
17:44 kuzetsa "hypothetical people will hypothetically be confused (or otherwise hypothetically inconvenienced, or somehow harmed)" is rather weak as far as arguments go for not doing a thing
17:45 ivanshmakov kuzetsa: For not doing an otherwise meaningless thing? For me, that’s quite an argument.
17:45 kuzetsa no, it's not meaningless
17:46 ivanshmakov kuzetsa: Surely it is. The whole “let’s make an amendment” thing was started because some firm has failed to keep it quiet that they were making edits to Wikipedia for their clients.
17:47 ivanshmakov kuzetsa: The respective accounts were blocked, while the edits were reviewed.
17:47 ivanshmakov kuzetsa: And found harmless.
17:47 ivanshmakov kuzetsa: Now, we have that nice policy in place. Who knows how many other harmless edits will it help to prevent?…
17:48 kuzetsa I'm pretty sure it's more about having a better grounds for termination of accounts which are shown to be abusive
17:49 kuzetsa [13:22:01] <+kuzetsa> the WMF ToU contains langauge about "enforcement discretion" which pretty much covers the cases where no harm is happening by chosing NOT to pedantically use a broad interperetation of the terms which prevents people from contributing in a way which is not harmful
17:54 kuzetsa I'm hungry, AFK a minute to go reheat some pizza (missed breakfast today, and it's nearly 14:00 local NY time -- lunch time!!!)
17:54 ivanshmakov kuzetsa: The “abusive” accounts are being “terminated” all day long; check the #wikimedia-stewards channel, for instance. What ToU is actually about is possible /legal action/ by the foundation.
17:57 kuzetsa no, most of the ToU has nothing to do with taking legal action
17:57 kuzetsa besides, taking legal action doesn't require a ToU in the first place
17:58 ivanshmakov kuzetsa: Having no contract to speak of, how would you initiate legal action for the other party breaching one?
17:59 kuzetsa As a private individual with a consulting / contracting business I run in my spare time, I can still take legal action against someone without needing to first publish any sort of boilerplate "contract with the whole world" type of document (terms of use or otherwise)
18:00 kuzetsa example: somebody stole access to one of my hosted applications by exploiting a security hole
18:00 kuzetsa I can still take legal action
18:00 kuzetsa no ToU required for any of that
19:18 ivanshmakov Curiously enough, Wikipedia fails to comply with the Russian law.
19:52 kuzetsa maybe I should add this to the top of my README.md on github -- http://manuels.github.io/unix​-toolbox.js-gnupg/kittens.png
19:53 Hypftier Is that openssl's new logo? :P
19:53 kuzetsa Hypftier: maybe, sure
21:47 mwn3d1 joined #rosettacode
22:08 mwn3d joined #rosettacode
23:17 mwn3d1 joined #rosettacode
23:18 fedaykin joined #rosettacode
23:20 mwndsphonesucks joined #rosettacode

| Channels | #rosettacode index | Today | | Search | Google Search | Plain-Text | summary