2025-02-20 00:01:29 <veltas      > I think inline is mostly good for special operation instructions that can't be expressed in C, like sync instructions, cpuid, etc
2025-02-20 00:43:36 <xentrac     > veltas: I know people who just prefer inline asm
2025-02-20 00:53:57 <MrMobius    > KipIngram: ya I see what you mean. I think of primitives as usually a few lines of assembly so it's odd to think of a primitive that is pages of code but why not?
2025-02-20 00:57:48 <xentrac     > please. the approved terminology is "non-state forager routine"
2025-02-20 01:00:06 <KipIngram   > Yeah, I get that too - i.e., a "primitive" should be... well, jprimitive.  That makes perfect sense too.
2025-02-20 10:24:40 <lisbeths    > so lets say that when we imageine a purely reversible forth that we also at the same time imageine that it is on a quantum computer
2025-02-20 10:25:00 <lisbeths    > quantum computers operate not only purely reversibly but what they are really good at is checking all of the possible outcomes of a program to find one or a few answers
2025-02-20 10:25:31 <lisbeths    > and so one way we could think about a purely reversible forth is a forth that tries out many different stack operations but resolves to just a handful of outcome stacks
2025-02-20 10:25:32 <lisbeths    > crc
2025-02-20 10:25:45 <lisbeths    > crcx
2025-02-20 12:30:54 <crc         > quantum computing isn't something I'm particularly concerned with
2025-02-20 12:32:43 <crc         > it'd be interesting, but I think a quantum Forth w/reversible calculations would be quite different from the implementations I do & I'm not aware of any actual quantum computers that I can buy to work with
2025-02-20 12:40:28 <crc         > veltas: that works nicely. Example 653 does work for me (I enlarged the display to 640x480 in this, otherwise part of the bottom drops off the visible screen, so might have been writing out of bounds with the 640x384 size): https://i.postimg.cc/TPwFHvg9/ilo-sdl-1bpp-block-653.png
2025-02-20 12:43:25 <xentrac     > lisbeths: that is not a very good description of quantum computers
2025-02-20 12:54:35 <user51      > crc: know what font is that?
2025-02-20 13:01:26 <crc         > user51: a variant of "t", an old font I extracted years ago from a DOS fonts program (VFONT); the raw font & others from this are at https://charles.childe.rs/ under fonts
2025-02-20 13:02:12 <crc         > Simon Tatham has a version of this named as "tektite" on https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/fonts/ in a few formats
2025-02-20 13:16:58 <user51      > crc: Looks great in a virtual console, a bit small on 1080p.
2025-02-20 13:31:05 <crc         > makes sense; it was designed for smaller screens with lower resolution. When using a higher resolution display, I run with the window scaled to 2x
2025-02-20 13:31:41 <crc         > (I don't actually use X11 often, mostly I'm just in a terminal)
2025-02-20 13:33:23 <veltas      > Yeah there's still some stuff to tidy up with SDL probably, but it at least performs better
2025-02-20 13:33:30 <veltas      > Thanks for trying that out
2025-02-20 13:33:57 <veltas      > I didn't run *: crc:drawing, maybe that would have messed it up?
2025-02-20 13:34:26 <veltas      > I'm still unfortunately not familiar with konilo
2025-02-20 13:35:28 <crc         > veltas: yes; that loads the drawing vocabulary that interfaces w/the framebuffer device
2025-02-20 13:35:54 <crc         > 
ACTION should document this; will do so this weekend

2025-02-20 13:36:07 <veltas      > To be fair, I'm not sure it needs documenting
2025-02-20 13:36:23 <veltas      > I think the issue is I don't know even the basics
2025-02-20 13:36:52 <veltas      > I've not been that motivated to learn retro or konilo, although maybe I will one day
2025-02-20 13:37:47 <crc         > user51: I use a 4x8 font on smaller screens (320x240 & similar): https://github.com/a780201/miniwi
2025-02-20 13:38:58 <crc         > I think it's a good thing to document anyway; I like having a documented system, even if I'll be the only one actually using it regularly
2025-02-20 14:14:06 <MrMobius    > crc, the 4x8 looks awesome. the text on the page is readable. have you tried using it for code?
2025-02-20 14:14:23 <MrMobius    > I just finished a 5x8 font for a 396x224 screen
2025-02-20 14:16:47 <crc         > Yea. It's what I'm actually using on the prototype for a dedicated ilo computer (teensy4.1, a 3.2" (iirc) 320x240 lcd, and keyboard)
2025-02-20 14:17:07 <crc         > For such a constrained size, it's surprisingly readable
2025-02-20 14:23:57 <veltas      > Those work well with square pixels
2025-02-20 14:24:15 <veltas      > But on real older low res devices they are unreadable, in my opinion anyway
2025-02-20 14:24:25 <veltas      > e.g. on a CRT TV
2025-02-20 14:25:07 <veltas      > I did make a 4x8 font for zenv, hoping to use it to edit a full block on screen, but on a TV it was unreadable, just a real headache
2025-02-20 14:26:19 <veltas      > In fact the screenshot they have is awful for that miniwi font, because of the presence of bold text
2025-02-20 14:26:28 <veltas      > Which doesn't work at all
2025-02-20 14:26:35 <veltas      > Not sure why their example would use that
2025-02-20 14:29:06 <veltas      > Yeah some letters are very hard to get right, capital N e.g.
2025-02-20 14:30:54 <veltas      > Would be cool to do a squarish font that looks exactly like this but can use subpixels to cope with those tight sloped lines better
2025-02-20 14:30:54 <veltas      > It's a very pretty font
2025-02-20 14:59:08 <xentrac     > the smallest I've gotten to be readable is a proportional 6-pixel-tall font
2025-02-20 15:00:09 <xentrac     > it ends up being about 3.58 pixels wide on average
2025-02-20 15:00:50 <xentrac     > http://canonical.org/~kragen/sw/netbook-misc-devel/propfontrender.py
2025-02-20 15:01:31 <xentrac     > it's more readable than the 4×6 fixed-width font I did based on Janne Kujala's design
2025-02-20 15:05:59 <veltas      > Yeah proportional is way to go with really tiny fonts
2025-02-20 15:06:01 <xentrac     > mine doesn't support Cyrillic, Braille, and semigraphics :)
2025-02-20 15:06:29 <xentrac     > proportional is definitely more complexity to layout and render
2025-02-20 15:07:12 <veltas      > I did implement this for ZX Spectrum, and it had good density and readibility
2025-02-20 20:25:03 <MrMobius    > ya proportional is cool but I like monospace for code. maybe I can offer both in my editor
2025-02-20 20:28:12 <KipIngram   > They each definitely have their place.
2025-02-20 20:36:59 <thrig       > boustrophedon support seems unpopular these days
2025-02-20 21:24:03 <veltas      > Boustrophedon would be useful for overly long lines
2025-02-20 21:38:27 <KipIngram   > Hmmm.  I looked at the Wikipedia article on that.  It has an example in the top right, and interestingly I didn't find it that hard to read.
2025-02-20 21:41:47 <KipIngram   > It did feel a little like I was reading "word by word."  I think when I read normally I grab up whole sections of sentences at once; I don't really know how to explain it.
2025-02-20 23:31:22 <veltas      > Yes full disclosure, I had no idea what it was until I looked it up as well
2025-02-20 23:32:10 <KipIngram   > Oh, yah - me either.
2025-02-20 23:32:20 <KipIngram   > It's a big world.
2025-02-20 23:33:20 <veltas      > I used to wonder how people could learn so much, how it could all fit in their heads
2025-02-20 23:33:36 <veltas      > And yet I keep adding to the pile of near-useless stuff and I've not run out of space yet
2025-02-20 23:34:12 <veltas      > How close are we to AGI?
2025-02-20 23:35:27 <KipIngram   >  I don't think it'll ever function "like us."  Just remains to be seen how thoroughly we'll be able to fake it.
2025-02-20 23:35:46 <KipIngram   > Brute force turns out to be fairly capable.
2025-02-20 23:35:53 <KipIngram   > If you pile on enough of it.
2025-02-20 23:38:18 <KipIngram   > But I'm an idealist (as in "not a materialist").  I think consciousness is "outside" of the processes we interpret as the physical world.
2025-02-20 23:38:32 <veltas      > As an engineer and a scientist I don't see why we can't make something that thinks as well as us or better even
2025-02-20 23:39:17 <KipIngram   > As far as delivered results go I agree with you - no telling what the limits there are.  But I don't think it will BE "like us."  I don't think we're algorithmic.
2025-02-20 23:39:38 <KipIngram   > I have absolutely zero proof to offer.
2025-02-20 23:39:55 <veltas      > As a Christian I'd agree there's something about us outside of the material world
2025-02-20 23:40:04 <KipIngram   > How would you prove whether something was conscious anyway?
2025-02-20 23:40:16 <KipIngram   > I.e., that it was actually "aware" the way we are?
2025-02-20 23:40:44 <KipIngram   > It's an internal perception that doesn't show in external behavior.
2025-02-20 23:40:53 <veltas      > Maybe we can create life and consciousness?
2025-02-20 23:41:00 <veltas      > We already do it all the time by accident
2025-02-20 23:41:06 <KipIngram   > Oh, well, sure.
2025-02-20 23:41:22 <KipIngram   > I was about to say the same thing - we do it all the time; they're called babies.  :-)
2025-02-20 23:41:44 <veltas      > And if we make life 'the hard way', would it also be in God's image?
2025-02-20 23:41:57 <KipIngram   > And I'm uncertain what the limits may be on that front.  We have completely replaced the DNA of a living cell, and it lived and reproduced per the instructions carried in that DNA.
2025-02-20 23:42:00 <veltas      > A lot of deep questions
2025-02-20 23:42:26 <veltas      > If you replace the broom handle and the broom brush is it the same broom?
2025-02-20 23:42:32 <KipIngram   > But we haven't yet built a living cell entirely from non-living ingredients yet.  I don't know if we're anywhere close to being able to try that - that would be quite an interesting experiment.
2025-02-20 23:42:43 <KipIngram   > Ship of Theseus.
2025-02-20 23:43:00 <veltas      > In the UK we have Trigger's Broom
2025-02-20 23:43:14 <KipIngram   > We replace our atoms all the time.
2025-02-20 23:44:05 <veltas      > Yeah if we were literally materialistic then you could say you aren't even yourself
2025-02-20 23:45:33 <veltas      > But if you add a soup of consciousness to the equation it doesn't get less crazy, if anything it gets more crazy.  And that's one reason I believe that the soul is a body and a spirit.
2025-02-20 23:45:45 <KipIngram   > Well, I think even if you're a materialist you can still argue that it's the organizational pattern of the materials that is really "you."
2025-02-20 23:45:57 <veltas      > Ah, so I am an idea
2025-02-20 23:46:06 <KipIngram   > And if you're an idealist you can argue that it's the conscious mind that happens to be working through that interface that's "you."
2025-02-20 23:46:40 <veltas      > Yes and my belief is that that's madness
2025-02-20 23:47:11 <KipIngram   > The particular brand of idealism that has my attention these days is a form promoted by a guy named Bernardo Kastrup.  He thinks there's actually just one universal mind, and we're all "dissociated alters" of it (like the personalities in a person with dissociative identity disorder).
2025-02-20 23:47:29 <veltas      > I and many people have had the same thought
2025-02-20 23:47:31 <KipIngram   > So we're separate personalities, but all ultimately part of the same mind.
2025-02-20 23:47:46 <veltas      > It being madness is not to say it's not true, but honestly I think it's simpler to just say souls are a thing
2025-02-20 23:47:57 <veltas      > And in a way it doesn't really 'mean' anything anyway
2025-02-20 23:47:59 <KipIngram   > There have been fascinating clinical cases where patients with that disorder have dreams in which multiple of their alters participate.
2025-02-20 23:48:10 <KipIngram   > And later, when interviewed, each alter recalls the dream from their own perspective.
2025-02-20 23:48:25 <KipIngram   > So, they share a little "pocket physical world" in those dreams.
2025-02-20 23:48:50 <KipIngram   > A micro version of what Kastrup thinks we're doing right now.
2025-02-20 23:49:19 <veltas      > I think Descartes had it all down
2025-02-20 23:49:43 <KipIngram   > That famous quote of his does seem pretty solid to me.
2025-02-20 23:50:54 <veltas      > That's just the first part of how he builds it all back up again, after tearing it all down
2025-02-20 23:51:25 <KipIngram   > But when I get the philosophy bug I try to start at the beginning with Plato, Aristotle, etc., and never stick with it long enough to get to the later guys.
2025-02-20 23:51:59 <KipIngram   > I did try to read Kant in college, on a friend's urging, but it just glazed my eyes over.  Maybe I'd do better with it now - got quite a few more decades under my belt.
2025-02-20 23:52:56 <KipIngram   > I remember reading Republic and thinking Plato's "utopia" sounded  pretty god awful to me.
2025-02-20 23:53:27 <KipIngram   > Very totalitarian.
2025-02-20 23:54:17 <KipIngram   > And of course in Plato's way of looking at it the philosophers should run the joint.
2025-02-20 23:54:44 <veltas      > Growing up I had this idea that republicanism and democracy etc were new things, because our history seemed to all be kings.  I didn't realise those kings have a heritage in a republic empire
2025-02-20 23:55:44 <KipIngram   > Yeah, democracy is a pretty old idea.  The Athenian version of it was kind of dangerous - it had a "mob rule" element to it.  No limits on the will of the majority.
2025-02-20 23:55:49 <veltas      > And now my view is that we have periods of more and less people at the top, and honestly sometimes it's better to have less and sometimes it's better to have more
2025-02-20 23:56:26 <KipIngram   > I do think there are times when decisive leadership is pretty necessary.
2025-02-20 23:56:41 <KipIngram   > Usually not times you like being in - dangerous stuff going on.
2025-02-20 23:56:51 <veltas      > It's interesting in my time we're re-discovering all the old mechanisms of monarchy today, this ancient thing that people have strong feelings about but don't understand how they enable or disable it
2025-02-20 23:57:10 <veltas      > We're all along for the ride either way
2025-02-20 23:58:08 <veltas      > Well there's stupid fools who want that chaos, and then there's smart fools who walk right into it trying to avoid it.