2023-11-22 03:27:48 <veltas      > zelgomer: Because it's noise for people to join and leave a lot, annoying to other channel users. It's good courtesy on IRC to not autojoin channels if you're just going to keep opening and closing your client
2023-11-22 03:28:12 <veltas      > It's fine if you're actually taking part but most people doing this aren't really interested in ##forth, it's just in a long list of autojoin channels
2023-11-22 03:29:04 <veltas      > It's been so bad once that I complained, it was like over 200 join/parts in one day, every minute
2023-11-22 03:29:57 <veltas      > I've seen other people complain about this too, once I was temp-banned from a channel because my server had network issues and I kept joining/parting.
2023-11-22 03:30:02 <veltas      > I didn't fault them for it
2023-11-22 05:54:00 <crc         > My client folds joins/repeats, so I don't tend to notice these quickly. If you see anything excessive, let me know and I can temporarily ban/redirect them until the issues are resolved
2023-11-22 06:14:11 <veltas      > It's not that bad right now, it's only the one situation where it was especially bad
2023-11-22 07:09:37 <olle        > 
ACTION la, la laa 

2023-11-22 07:14:19 <olle        > What to learn about Forth today?
2023-11-22 07:14:23 <olle        > Word of the day? :D
2023-11-22 07:14:39 <olle        > There should be a Christmas calendar like that.
2023-11-22 07:14:48 <olle        > Forth words on tasty chocolate :d
2023-11-22 07:43:47 <veltas      > Do you have no job?
2023-11-22 07:44:25 <veltas      > Some people here will be trying advent of code in forth, or at least the first few
2023-11-22 07:45:24 <veltas      > I might try it on my ZX Spectrum forth (or at least on emulator as I've sold my actual spectrum)
2023-11-22 07:47:46 <olle        > veltas: I work with PHP
2023-11-22 07:48:15 <olle        > But yea I get bored easily
2023-11-22 07:52:57 <olle        > This accounting system does not spark joy.
2023-11-22 07:53:07 <olle        > Hm advent of code
2023-11-22 08:00:59 <olle        > Just found out my friend has 80 EUR/h, and I have 30 EUR. :O
2023-11-22 08:01:06 <olle        > He has a PhD tho, I don't. Not the same company.
2023-11-22 08:01:38 <user51      > Comparison is the thief of joy :P Use substraction instead :D
2023-11-22 08:02:09 <olle        > Hehe
2023-11-22 08:33:04 <veltas      > All real jobs are not 'joyful' most of the day but you still need to do them
2023-11-22 08:33:54 <veltas      > In my country it's quite inappropriate to divulge your salary but I think that might just be a thing in UK
2023-11-22 08:34:03 <veltas      > Everywhere else people seem to talk openly about it
2023-11-22 08:36:34 <olle        > If you wanna be pro-union you basically need open salary lists.
2023-11-22 08:37:03 <olle        > For the record, this is why I want a society where all get the same salary xD
2023-11-22 08:37:21 <veltas      > I don't understand how that explains why you want that
2023-11-22 08:38:18 <olle        > No more arguments or conflicts or comparison
2023-11-22 09:16:20 <zelgomer    > veltas> zelgomer: Because it's noise...
2023-11-22 09:16:55 <zelgomer    > i understand, but noise cancelling doesn't seem to be in scope with what chanserv provides
2023-11-22 09:17:42 <zelgomer    > also, if you're using irssi, scripts.irssi.org look for zmartfilter.pl :)
2023-11-22 09:17:52 <zelgomer    > with a z
2023-11-22 09:36:40 <KipIngram   > Divulging one's salary tend to be thought of differently at different companies here.  Though there is just the general social more that if your salary is large then divulging it is a little braggy.
2023-11-22 09:37:00 <KipIngram   > Some companies will still fire you for it.
2023-11-22 09:38:38 <KipIngram   > I twiddled my irc config years ago to hide most join/quit lines.
2023-11-22 09:41:50 <Zarutian_iPad> one place I worked there was a rule that you were forbidden to talk about salary during mealtimes in the cafeteria. A rule that was not set by the company but a rather large group of folks that just wanted to eat their launch in relative peace
2023-11-22 09:42:03 <GeDaMo      > In many countries it's illegal to prevent discussion of salaries
2023-11-22 09:43:32 <KipIngram   > I mostly think it should be illegal to prevent any sort of factual discussion.
2023-11-22 09:44:05 <veltas      > What if my factual discussion is the ICBM codes?
2023-11-22 09:44:17 <KipIngram   > That's obviously an edge case.
2023-11-22 09:44:19 <Zarutian_iPad> note that you could go outside or other such, the rule was just for that particular cafeteria
2023-11-22 09:44:39 <Zarutian_iPad> and only during set times.
2023-11-22 09:44:50 <veltas      > KipIngram: I can come up with counterpoints all day to that principle so that's the issue with the principle I think
2023-11-22 09:44:58 <veltas      > It's a nice idea but it just doesn't hold water in my opinion
2023-11-22 09:46:12 <KipIngram   > The general idea or that there should be edge cases?
2023-11-22 09:46:30 <KipIngram   > I'm not at all saying that words can't cause problems.
2023-11-22 09:46:43 <KipIngram   > I'm just fairly into the whole "free speech' thing.
2023-11-22 09:47:14 <KipIngram   > but i also understand the "don't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater" idea.
2023-11-22 09:47:26 <veltas      > That's the issue really with 'free speech' is that the edge cases are inherently political and hard to define, so you can't really be pro free speech without explaining more about where the line is IMO
2023-11-22 09:47:55 <Zarutian_iPad> or 'move your soapbox, you are disturbing the peace of this part of the park'?
2023-11-22 09:48:12 <KipIngram   > I think it's worth trying to define them, but you are right that it get twisted around to suit people's views.
2023-11-22 09:48:15 <veltas      > I don't think I'm being pedantic at all, it's a legitimate problem, for example the whole debate about hate speech and what constitutes hate speech, oppressive speech, etc
2023-11-22 09:48:27 <KipIngram   > Indeed - you're right.
2023-11-22 09:48:30 <veltas      > Not that anyone said I was being pedantic
2023-11-22 09:48:48 <KipIngram   > The concept of "hate speech" has been rather weaponized.
2023-11-22 09:49:36 <Zarutian_iPad> it is an weapon used by persons cought in 'purity spirals'.
2023-11-22 09:50:44 <zelgomer    > <+KipIngram> but i also understand the "don't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater" idea.
2023-11-22 09:50:54 <zelgomer    > commonly misrepresented argument
2023-11-22 09:51:12 <KipIngram   > yeah, the whole issue has been twisted in so many ways.
2023-11-22 09:51:31 <zelgomer    > it's completely legal and even encouraged to yell fire in a crowded theater if there is in fact a fire
2023-11-22 09:51:39 <zelgomer    > thst's not a 1a issue
2023-11-22 09:51:50 <KipIngram   > No, the issue is when there is not a fire.
2023-11-22 09:52:08 <veltas      > It's never been about warning people about a fire
2023-11-22 09:52:15 <zelgomer    > it's still not a 1a issue
2023-11-22 09:52:20 <olle        > 1a?
2023-11-22 09:52:25 <olle        > This is not USA :D
2023-11-22 09:52:30 <zelgomer    > free speech
2023-11-22 09:52:35 <KipIngram   > First amendment.
2023-11-22 09:52:44 <olle        > Yea, you think 1a is the only def of free speech?
2023-11-22 09:52:47 <zelgomer    > oh, so you knew what i meant, anyway
2023-11-22 09:53:00 <KipIngram   > The real purpose of the first amendment is to ensure that people can criticize their government without being persecuted for it.
2023-11-22 09:53:10 <KipIngram   > That's the reason it's THERE.
2023-11-22 09:53:39 <KipIngram   > It's a rule placed on the government more than anything else.
2023-11-22 09:54:02 <KipIngram   > All of the first ten amendments were really restrictions of federal government power.
2023-11-22 09:54:13 <zelgomer    > the entire bill of rights are restrictiond on the government, yes
2023-11-22 09:55:18 <zelgomer    > i don't know why this "were really" or "more than anything" qualifiers are needee
2023-11-22 09:55:31 <zelgomer    > there's no ambiguitu to it whatsoever
2023-11-22 09:55:41 <KipIngram   > I guess I'm just trying not to sound like I think my opinion is the end all and be all.
2023-11-22 09:56:06 <zelgomer    > this is not opinion, it's documented fact
2023-11-22 09:56:15 <KipIngram   > I do think, though, that the reason the amendment was there was to make it explicit that people were allowed to be critical of the sitting government.
2023-11-22 09:56:23 <olle        > The problem is more... up to discussion? In countries which have a weaker constitution, or tend to amend the constitution more often.
2023-11-22 09:56:24 <KipIngram   > Without fear of being punished for that.
2023-11-22 09:56:49 <olle        > For funsies, check how often France changed its constitution since USA was first formed. :)
2023-11-22 09:56:56 <KipIngram   > It was not intended to authorize saying things that created immenently dangerous situations.
2023-11-22 09:57:16 <KipIngram   > And it's also not been taken so far as to allow advocacy of open rebellion.
2023-11-22 09:57:48 <KipIngram   > But if you can't criticize and review the government's action, it's hard to say that you have a functioning democracy.
2023-11-22 10:00:09 <KipIngram   > What has happened in the last few years, though, is that there's been a push not only to prohibit saying things that manufacture immenent danger, but to also prohibit saying things that "hurt someone's feelings."
2023-11-22 10:00:39 <KipIngram   > And tha tis a big change - the attitude when I was young was more in tune with that old "sticks and stones" cliche.
2023-11-22 10:01:20 <olle        > Isn't that change more cultural than legal? And only in some countries?
2023-11-22 10:01:45 <olle        > Globally, democracy is declaining. Declining?
2023-11-22 10:01:47 <KipIngram   > I think it's fair to argue that it's a culture thing so far, but there is clearly a desire to make it legal.
2023-11-22 10:01:52 <olle        > But probably for other reasons. Turkey etc.
2023-11-22 10:02:53 <KipIngram   > the internet has also make the situation nastier.  I've never had a problem with someone deciding they don't like something someone says, so they choose not to interact with that person anymore.
2023-11-22 10:03:07 <KipIngram   > The thing said was an allowed act, the other individual's response was an allowed act.
2023-11-22 10:03:29 <KipIngram   > But with the internet people gang together and try to basically "target people for destruction" if they say the wrong thing.
2023-11-22 10:03:48 <olle        > Not only voluntary but by algorithms too
2023-11-22 10:04:06 <olle        > Outrage gives more interaction etc
2023-11-22 10:04:11 <KipIngram   > And that's a difficult situation, because every one of those people is still acting freely, but on the other hand I don't think a person should just be erased from participation in the world because he's a jerk.
2023-11-22 10:04:58 <KipIngram   > And I worry over the "hangman cometh" aspect of the whole thing.
2023-11-22 10:05:09 <KipIngram   > It seems like a process that could very easily get out of control.
2023-11-22 10:06:01 <KipIngram   > What will be the thing you're not allowed to say ten years from now?  Or twnety?
2023-11-22 10:07:12 <KipIngram   > and who decides that?
2023-11-22 10:07:52 <olle        > It's a grey area when a private company becomes a global social institution, like Twitter.
2023-11-22 10:07:56 <olle        > Or previously Twitter.
2023-11-22 10:08:42 <KipIngram   > Yes, though I've felt for some time that the larger an economic entity becomes the more subject they should be to the same constitutional limitations that the government here (supposedly) is.
2023-11-22 10:09:05 <olle        > Just socialize it lol
2023-11-22 10:09:08 <olle        > Mostly joking
2023-11-22 10:09:11 <KipIngram   > Little Mom and Pop business should get to operate almost any way they want to.  Huge corporations, though, sling a lot more power around and should be on a shorter leash.
2023-11-22 10:10:15 <KipIngram   > I know you are, but funnily enough it fits a little.  My whole feeling is that the super mega large corporations should be under more of a requirement to operate in the public interest.
2023-11-22 10:10:28 <KipIngram   > But I don't want to go so far as full socialism.
2023-11-22 10:10:52 <KipIngram   > I lean toward a "set of rules."  And not so much about how the money flows.
2023-11-22 10:12:02 <KipIngram   > I'm thinking more along the lines of exactly what you alluded to - Twitter should be required to honor free speech to a large extent.  As much as the government is, given the level of influence Twitter has accrued.
2023-11-22 10:12:12 <KipIngram   > But the governement shouldn't be "operating their business."
2023-11-22 10:12:23 <KipIngram   > which is how I think of socialism.
2023-11-22 10:13:07 <KipIngram   > Really I just wish that comanies didn't get that big to start with.
2023-11-22 10:13:30 <KipIngram   > I'd be supportive of a tax structure that tended to prevent it.  Bigger you are, higher your taxes are.
2023-11-22 10:13:38 <olle        > In Sweden we once had a suggestion that workers should be paid partly with shares in the company they work for, and those shares should be taken care of by the unions.
2023-11-22 10:13:42 <KipIngram   > I think you'd naturally see companies split themselves up to avoid the high taxes.
2023-11-22 10:14:24 <olle        > Thing is, unions in Sweden work closely with social democrat party ;)
2023-11-22 10:14:37 <KipIngram   > Then all of the "little Twitters" would be competing with one another in terms of their policies, and people could vote via their choice of tweet company.
2023-11-22 10:15:12 <zelgomer    > taxes are never the answer
2023-11-22 10:15:12 <KipIngram   > Yes, I heard that Biden is making a bid to get the American unions back firmly in the Democrat column.
2023-11-22 10:15:16 <KipIngram   > Like they used to be.
2023-11-22 10:15:23 <zelgomer    > stop using twitter
2023-11-22 10:15:45 <zelgomer    > the power to deny twitter power lies with you
2023-11-22 10:15:58 <KipIngram   > Of course, but it's gotten to the point where if you stop using Twitter you unnplug yourself.  It's the modern equivalent of tacking up a public notice in the town square centuries ago.
2023-11-22 10:16:18 <KipIngram   > So 'stop using twitter' begins to mean "silence yourself," which is exactly what the problem people want.
2023-11-22 10:16:44 <KipIngram   > I think some of these companies have become the equivalent of public utilties.
2023-11-22 10:17:02 <zelgomer    > no they haven't.
2023-11-22 10:17:10 <KipIngram   > We can disagree.
2023-11-22 10:18:53 <zelgomer    > if you want to make an anticompetition case, the issue there lies in aws or other hosting services denying service to twitter competitors based on political disagreement
2023-11-22 10:19:06 <KipIngram   > I do want to reiterate that I think all of this should depend on size.  Small business enterprises should be able to make almost any choice about how to operate they want to.
2023-11-22 10:19:23 <KipIngram   > Because you can't argue that they exert a major influence on the whole of society.
2023-11-22 10:19:30 <zelgomer    > path to hell paved with good intentions
2023-11-22 10:19:36 <KipIngram   > It is.
2023-11-22 10:19:42 <KipIngram   > Good intentions of all types.
2023-11-22 10:20:10 <KipIngram   > As in your intentions are as likely to pave that path as mine are.
2023-11-22 10:21:08 <zelgomer    > the problem you aim to solve is government or political influence on speech. your solution: more government influence
2023-11-22 10:21:34 <olle        > More regulation can be worth it. :)
2023-11-22 10:21:38 <KipIngram   > the problem I aim to solve is runaway corporate power.
2023-11-22 10:21:41 <olle        > Depends on the consequence of such regulations.
2023-11-22 10:21:48 <KipIngram   > which is just as dangerous as runaway government power.
2023-11-22 10:22:10 <zelgomer    > KipIngram: "runaway corporate power" exists only with government's help
2023-11-22 10:22:26 <KipIngram   > I do think there's truth in that.
2023-11-22 10:23:29 <zelgomer    > so the government isn't enforcing antitrust the way you want. what makes you think they'll enforce any other regulation or taxation the way you want?
2023-11-22 10:23:50 <olle        > runaway corporate power" exists only with government's help [citation needed] ;)
2023-11-22 10:24:20 <zelgomer    > olle: ISP monopolies
2023-11-22 10:24:26 <KipIngram   > Yeah - that is definitely a good point.  But as things are now, it requires explicit actionon the government's part to mount an anti-trust action.  If it were hard wired into the tax code then it would happen automatically.
2023-11-22 10:24:47 <KipIngram   > And yes, for sure if they then kept slapping loopholes into the code they could undermine it.
2023-11-22 10:25:03 <KipIngram   > We've already got that problem.
2023-11-22 10:25:04 <zelgomer    > "happen automatically" oh you mean like border security?
2023-11-22 10:25:24 <KipIngram   > No, I just mean that companies already spend a lot of energy minimizing their tax bill.
2023-11-22 10:25:41 <KipIngram   > If making the most money overall meant downsizing, I think they'd downsize.
2023-11-22 10:25:48 <zelgomer    > and they will find a way around it
2023-11-22 10:25:59 <KipIngram   > Sure, if they're allowed to.
2023-11-22 10:26:00 <zelgomer    > they'll be 8 different companies on paper
2023-11-22 10:26:03 <KipIngram   > It's what they do.
2023-11-22 10:26:25 <zelgomer    > at least now i can see my enemy
2023-11-22 10:26:39 <zelgomer    > you want to give them incentive to hide
2023-11-22 10:27:40 <zelgomer    > these problems will never be solved until the populace understands that they have to be part of tge solution. there is no government solution here
2023-11-22 10:27:59 <KipIngram   > Well, I'm just pointing out that in some ways capitalism is the most ethical, freedom oriented economic system there is, but when economic power begins to become too concentrated it loses a lot of its luster.
2023-11-22 10:28:15 <zelgomer    > nobody ever voted their way out of communism. no one ever voted their way out of fascism, either
2023-11-22 10:28:22 <KipIngram   > I don't find it as easy to "defend it" when it's gotten to the highly concentrated state.
2023-11-22 10:28:39 <KipIngram   > whereas when there are many small free players acting freely in the market, I think it's inarguably the best system.
2023-11-22 10:29:08 <KipIngram   > Best in terms of economic output, best in terms of ethics, etc.
2023-11-22 10:29:51 <KipIngram   > But it's not 100% free of pathologies, and most of those pathologies relate to "big."
2023-11-22 10:30:19 <zelgomer    > no disagreement there. where i disagree is when your solution is to throw more money and power at the one largest and legal monopoly
2023-11-22 10:31:06 <KipIngram   > Well, I'd rather have the rules by which we do things codified in a constitution than have them be at the arbitrary whim of the government.
2023-11-22 10:31:32 <KipIngram   > I definitely do not want to increase the government's ability to "do whatever they like."
2023-11-22 10:32:49 <KipIngram   > I just think when we first set all of this up we didn't foresee the massive power that private enterprise would eventually accrue.
2023-11-22 10:33:08 <zelgomer    > olle: more examples. american car manufacturers, delta airlines
2023-11-22 10:33:14 <zelgomer    > at&t
2023-11-22 10:33:23 <olle        > Mm
2023-11-22 10:33:36 <zelgomer    > defense contractors
2023-11-22 10:33:38 <olle        > Institutional capture?
2023-11-22 10:33:43 <KipIngram   > ^^ definitely that one.
2023-11-22 10:33:54 <olle        > "Regulatory capture" it's called
2023-11-22 10:34:37 <KipIngram   > When President Eisenhower left office, he warned us in his farewell address about the 'military industrial complex.'  That warning seems to have done little good, though.
2023-11-22 10:35:51 <zelgomer    > big government regulations is to capitalism basically a loaded gun on the table in the middle of the room. in a competative system, the obvious best choice is to make a mad dash for it
2023-11-22 10:36:18 <zelgomer    > the solution to this is to remove the gun from the equation and make everyone fight with sticks
2023-11-22 10:36:24 <olle        > Corruption is a hard problem, indeed.
2023-11-22 10:36:24 <KipIngram   > Yeah, regulation has been weaponized.
2023-11-22 10:36:43 <olle        > I don't think I agree with that anology tho.
2023-11-22 10:36:45 <KipIngram   > It is.  It requires eternal vigilance, and we seem to be too busy watching reality TV and so on.
2023-11-22 10:37:12 <olle        > I think it's actively worked on. See EU and Ukraine. And EU vs Poland.
2023-11-22 10:38:07 <KipIngram   > What's up with Poland?
2023-11-22 10:38:19 <KipIngram   > I don't think I've caught wind of that one.
2023-11-22 10:38:43 <olle        > Supreme court fights.
2023-11-22 10:38:57 <KipIngram   > I'll search it up.
2023-11-22 10:39:00 <olle        > Government wants to remove judges, EU says government shouldn't.
2023-11-22 10:39:11 <olle        > It's old tho, dunno current status.
2023-11-22 10:41:43 <KipIngram   > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBEDvuIJxaI
2023-11-22 10:42:09 <KipIngram   > Somehow ran across a small flock of Forth videos last night.
2023-11-22 10:42:25 <KipIngram   > I'm not even sure what I searched for that got me there - I wasn't actually looking for it.
2023-11-22 10:42:36 <KipIngram   > Maybe it's AI monitoring me.  :-)
2023-11-22 10:51:39 <olle        > The algorithms will eat the world.
2023-11-22 10:52:39 <veltas      > The issue with judges is when they're political or get to legislate by interpretation
2023-11-22 10:52:41 <thrig       > they'll have to duke it out with the cockroach that ate Cincinnati
2023-11-22 10:53:11 <veltas      > But I think we're all following the American model now so will probably have political supreme courts and yet more arbitrary political anti-democratic baggage
2023-11-22 10:53:43 <olle        > Montesquieu came up with separation of power, btw.
2023-11-22 10:53:46 <veltas      > And the left will legislate while they're in power and right will just undo what the left did that they disagreed with
2023-11-22 10:54:19 <olle        > The main problem with US and UK is, they are not proportional systems.
2023-11-22 10:54:51 <veltas      > I think that needs backing up really
2023-11-22 10:55:02 <veltas      > That the lack of proportional voting is the issue
2023-11-22 10:56:29 <olle        > You get weird shit like gerrymandering.
2023-11-22 10:56:40 <veltas      > Scale's an interesting factor in any such discussion
2023-11-22 10:56:43 <olle        > But sure, it's *one* problem.
2023-11-22 10:56:47 <veltas      > Sweden has a comparable population to London
2023-11-22 10:56:58 <veltas      > I think scale is important too
2023-11-22 10:57:11 <olle        > Mm
2023-11-22 10:58:38 <veltas      > My rationale is that locality matters, you care about people 'closer' to you, harder to do that with many more people
2023-11-22 10:59:12 <veltas      > And larger countries are more complicated to run well and consistently
2023-11-22 11:05:04 <zelgomer    > veltas> And the left will legislate while they're in power and right will just undo what the left did that they disagreed with
2023-11-22 11:05:09 <zelgomer    > this is not the US model
2023-11-22 11:06:09 <veltas      > That's what roe v wade looked like although I'll admit ignorance, I'm not american and don't follow too closely
2023-11-22 11:07:38 <zelgomer    > the US model is that the left achieves what they want through creative mental gymnastics to invent laws from the judicial branch, and to ignore laws they don't want to enforce from the executive branch, and then the right-leaning legeslative writes stern letters and doesn't actually do anything about it
2023-11-22 11:08:27 <zelgomer    > the US left achieves through subversion and coercion, the US right is stupid and impotent
2023-11-22 11:09:38 <veltas      > What I said was paraphrasing that with slightly less imagery
2023-11-22 11:10:09 <veltas      > I think it's wrong to legislate via courts, it should be done accountably if there's any democratic principle at all
2023-11-22 11:10:21 <veltas      > But I don't think that's possible anyway, I'm just calling out hypocrisy
2023-11-22 11:11:49 <zelgomer    > sorry, i didn't catch that you meant "legeslate from the courts". yes, that is exactly what roe v. wade was
2023-11-22 11:13:39 <zelgomer    > anyway, stop talking about screwed up government ruling class tyrants and make me better at forth
2023-11-22 11:15:13 <olle        > Hehe
2023-11-22 11:15:21 <olle        > I recommend "Forth word of the day"
2023-11-22 11:15:23 <olle        > KipIngram: Any tips?
2023-11-22 11:15:40 <zelgomer    > dup
2023-11-22 11:16:02 <olle        > It should be non-trivial tho
2023-11-22 11:16:10 <zelgomer    > 2dup :)
2023-11-22 11:16:11 <Zarutian_iPad> ?: ?
2023-11-22 11:19:23 <Zarutian_iPad> that object system I described many moons ago might be a topic of intrest
2023-11-22 11:20:21 <GeDaMo      > https://bernd-paysan.de/screenful.html
2023-11-22 11:20:22 <olle        > Explain. Explaaaaain.
2023-11-22 11:20:42 <Zarutian_iPad> no bloody classes (which was just a performance hack for SmallTalk80 back then)
2023-11-22 11:21:36 <KipIngram   > olle: Sorry - I was off tending to other morning tasks.  Lemme go figure out what you were asking me.
2023-11-22 11:21:53 <Zarutian_iPad> basically, each object is made up of four parts
2023-11-22 11:22:26 <KipIngram   > olle: What were you wanting tips on?
2023-11-22 11:22:49 <Zarutian_iPad> header, 1 cell; xt, 1 cell; refs part, x cells; data, y cells.
2023-11-22 11:23:04 <KipIngram   > And some words don't need all four parts.
2023-11-22 11:23:24 <Zarutian_iPad> the header and xt is always given.
2023-11-22 11:23:28 <KipIngram   > Yes.
2023-11-22 11:24:02 <Zarutian_iPad> The header tells how big the refs part and data part are
2023-11-22 11:24:08 <KipIngram   > The xt always leads you to executable code.
2023-11-22 11:25:05 <KipIngram   > What's your fourth part, Zarutian_iPad?
2023-11-22 11:25:28 <KipIngram   > I see header/name, xt, optional data.  Not sure what #4 would be.
2023-11-22 11:25:35 <Zarutian_iPad> the xt points to the 'script' of the object so to speak. A bit like a word defined bia CREATE DOES>
2023-11-22 11:25:57 <Zarutian_iPad> the refs part and data part are seperate, hence 4
2023-11-22 11:26:07 <KipIngram   > What's refs?
2023-11-22 11:26:44 <KipIngram   > Are you describing generic Forth words, or some extended model you've set up?
2023-11-22 11:26:45 <Zarutian_iPad> refs always has pointers to other objects which might change, data doesnt. It only contains normal data.
2023-11-22 11:26:57 <KipIngram   > I do see that a create/does> word would have a fourth part.
2023-11-22 11:26:59 <Zarutian_iPad> object system on top of Forth
2023-11-22 11:27:06 <KipIngram   > Aha.  Ok; thanks.
2023-11-22 11:27:58 <Zarutian_iPad> the refs need to be seperate to allow for easier svanning at gc time and pointer updates as the objects get moved around
2023-11-22 11:28:32 <Zarutian_iPad> and instead of dual space gc I use a circular object memory
2023-11-22 11:29:01 <Zarutian_iPad> bbl
2023-11-22 11:42:18 <KipIngram   > I'm interested in exploring circular object memory.
2023-11-22 11:42:42 <KipIngram   > Though I'm pretty sure I will also wind up with a traditional heap system of some kind.
2023-11-22 11:43:10 <KipIngram   > I'm thinking the circular buffer might just handle transient objects that appear referenced from the stack.
2023-11-22 11:43:57 <KipIngram   > Like, if I call out a "literal string like this" that string would go in the circular buffer and be referenced by a stack item.
2023-11-22 11:44:20 <KipIngram   > And if I then followed with " " split I'd then have a stack item that referenced an array of strings, etc.
2023-11-22 11:44:25 <zelgomer    > also interested in this. i've written pad before to refer to circular memory. "pad" just gives you the next unused address, "N buffer" gives you the next unused address and actually advances the pad pointer. it was really nice as a string scratch space, but lord help you when the time comes to debug overflows
2023-11-22 11:44:47 <KipIngram   > No kidding - great when it works and a nightmare when it doesn't.
2023-11-22 11:45:42 <KipIngram   > I'd try to avoid that problem by just throwing RAM at it.
2023-11-22 11:48:25 <zelgomer    > i may do it again this time around, haven't decided yet. like i said, it was actually _really_ nice... and in linux, you can play neat games with mmap. use memfd_create to make an anonymous temp file, truncate it to a page, mmap it to two pages, then mmap the first page over the second page again. now the second page mirrors the first page, so you can write off the end and it automatically wraps. so you
2023-11-22 11:48:31 <zelgomer    > only need to wrap your pointer after adjustment
2023-11-22 12:03:07 <Zarutian_iPad> back
2023-11-22 12:03:28 <olle        > You need such fancy memory things with Forth? Or just for the heck of it?
2023-11-22 12:03:49 <olle        > I'm a fan of arenas personally, but never got to use it in a professional setting.
2023-11-22 12:03:59 <Zarutian_iPad> well, I wrote this object system for fcpu-16 which might or might not have an os underneath it
2023-11-22 12:07:03 <KipIngram   > olle: I'm interested in scientific computing.  Working with vectors, matrices, etc.  That requires some place to put such things.
2023-11-22 12:07:23 <Zarutian_iPad> and all object buffer related acceses went through obj_@ and obj_!
2023-11-22 12:07:25 <olle        > Ya, but if upper bound is known, just let the OS collect?
2023-11-22 12:07:36 <KipIngram   > But even just the idea of literal strings evokes the issue.  Most Forths won't let you type in a literal string, because Forth in its most "basic" form offers no place to put such things.
2023-11-22 12:07:37 <olle        > At end of program.
2023-11-22 12:07:58 <KipIngram   > Sure, but the goal here is to avoid such inconveniences as garbage collection.
2023-11-22 12:08:25 <KipIngram   > As I generate transient items (strings, vectors, etc.) it would just slap them into the next available part of the circular buffer.
2023-11-22 12:08:30 <KipIngram   > When it hits the top end, it wraps.
2023-11-22 12:08:48 <KipIngram   > Basically I'd be promising to be "finished using" any item before I wrapped around and overwrote it.
2023-11-22 12:08:58 <KipIngram   > Definitely not for "long term items."
2023-11-22 12:09:46 <KipIngram   > What you described would work too, though - maybe you've got enough RAM to just allocate space for anything you need, upward through ram, and then it gets "deallocated" when you restart your Forth.
2023-11-22 12:10:05 <KipIngram   > The "circular" part is just a way to keep the thing working for a long time without having to explicitly reset anything.
2023-11-22 12:10:26 <KipIngram   > Like zelgomer said, though, if you do make a mistake and use something that's been overwritten, that could be very hard to troubleshoot.
2023-11-22 12:11:01 <KipIngram   > But we have so much RAM these days.
2023-11-22 12:11:09 <KipIngram   > And Forth generally needs so little.
2023-11-22 12:11:58 <zelgomer    > when i was playing with it years ago, i never actually had an issue with it sized at a single 4K page. but i wasn't doing much back then, either, and i just always had this fear in the back of my mind that i would regret it some day
2023-11-22 12:12:22 <KipIngram   > I've talked about stealig ideas from APL.  APL is all about large complicated arrays; this provides a place to store those as they're created.
2023-11-22 12:12:44 <KipIngram   > Yeah, there's no denying that it's "breaking the rules.'
2023-11-22 12:13:03 <olle        > I did read of memory ring buffer before, indeed. Just always seemed quite unsafe. :)
2023-11-22 12:13:20 <KipIngram   > In theory it is - you could always deliberately create a problem if you tried.
2023-11-22 12:13:31 <KipIngram   > But Forth has no shortage of ways to zap yourself.
2023-11-22 12:14:34 <KipIngram   > In most cases the idea would be that if you do produce, say, a matrix that you need to have around for a while, you will store it somewhere else.
2023-11-22 12:14:40 <KipIngram   > Give it a permanent home.
2023-11-22 12:19:46 <KipIngram   > Strictly speaking using PAD at all is equally suspect.  You're using space that hasn't actually been overwritten.  So we already do something kind of like this.
2023-11-22 12:20:17 <KipIngram   > In most Forths at least - I suppose we might find one or two that have a more trustworthy PAD.
2023-11-22 12:20:54 <KipIngram   > I'm sorry, space that MIGHT BE overwritten.
2023-11-22 12:21:08 <KipIngram   > So you have to be done with that address by the time it is.
2023-11-22 12:22:49 <KipIngram   > So, I had no idea this guy was also a player in digital maker space:
2023-11-22 12:23:01 <KipIngram   > https://github.com/TheByteAttic
2023-11-22 12:23:26 <KipIngram   > I'm familiar with him on a wholly different front - he's actually a philosopher with a theory if idealism I find interesting.
2023-11-22 12:23:47 <KipIngram   > Bernardo Kastrup.
2023-11-22 12:26:45 <olle        > Two Phds? Neato.
2023-11-22 13:07:02 <KipIngram   > Yeah, brainy guy.
2023-11-22 13:07:49 <olle        > I'm more in the "nothing is certain" camp, and people who are really really certain are a bit dubious to me.
2023-11-22 13:07:57 <olle        > But of course, you need to be certain to have a fun debate.
2023-11-22 13:11:27 <KipIngram   > Well, I just look at it as putting forward the best ideas we can, and it's only in fairly rare cases we can be 100% sure of anything.
2023-11-22 13:12:05 <KipIngram   > The materialism / idealism debate is a really interesting one, because both camps face questions they have so far failed to answer, at least to my satisfaction.
2023-11-22 13:12:13 <KipIngram   > So there really is no way to be sure which one is right.
2023-11-22 13:13:34 <KipIngram   > Materialism has no good way to explain why we're "self aware" at all, or even what self-awareness / consciousness IS.  Idealism gets a pass on that by declaring consciousness to be the postulated foundation, but they need to explain why we perceive the particular laws of physics we do perceive.
2023-11-22 13:13:52 <KipIngram   > I.e., why would "interacting minds" lead to the impression we have of a physical world that works the way it does?
2023-11-22 13:14:48 <KipIngram   > I lean toward idealism because I can at least IMAGINE the idealist camp eventually answering its question in a satisfactory way, whereas I just don't see how physical materialism is ever going to get a handle on consciousness.
2023-11-22 13:16:58 <KipIngram   > A lot of folks seem to think that materialism has "won the deate," and that all of our scientific data "supports materialism," but I don't think so - I think science tells us what to expect to perceive, but not why to expect it.
2023-11-22 13:17:07 <KipIngram   > I don't think it gets at that very bottom layer question at all.
2023-11-22 13:18:57 <Zarutian_iPad> materialism seems to be reducto ad absurdium whilist idealism seems on the verge of the 'crystal-pagans'
2023-11-22 13:19:21 <KipIngram   > Yeah, it's easy for the idealists to get carried away.
2023-11-22 13:19:43 <KipIngram   > One of the things I like about Kastrup is how tightly he ties his ideas to actual clinical data.
2023-11-22 13:20:23 <KipIngram   > His idea is that ultimately there is only one consciousness underlying everything, but that it's subject to dissociative personality effects.  I.e., we're all "split personalities" of a single universal mind.
2023-11-22 13:20:45 <KipIngram   > He's just promoting to the full universe effects that we have clearly seen in actual medical situations.
2023-11-22 13:21:06 <KipIngram   > He cites one case where a woman had multiple personalities, and she had dreams in which multiple of those personalities were present.
2023-11-22 13:21:16 <Zarutian_iPad> eh, that sounds like some religious bs I have often heard elsewhere
2023-11-22 13:21:31 <KipIngram   > Each one remembered that dream from it's own point of view - they actually coexisted in a shared "dream world" as separate conscious entities.
2023-11-22 13:22:10 <Zarutian_iPad> not hard to do, mentally, story authors do it all the time.
2023-11-22 13:22:11 <KipIngram   > So there is already documented evidence that mind can "cook up" the perception of a physical world.  in fact, it's what happens when any of us dream.
2023-11-22 13:22:57 <KipIngram   > Sure, but in dreams we actually PERCEIVE that "artificial" world.
2023-11-22 13:23:08 <Zarutian_iPad> hmm... it is a question of persitance and internal consistancy that makes dreamworlds rather unstable
2023-11-22 13:23:17 <KipIngram   > I.e., a real physical world is not required in order for such perceptions to exist.
2023-11-22 13:23:52 <Zarutian_iPad> ya heard of the 'brain in a vat' philosophical argument?
2023-11-22 13:24:01 <KipIngram   > To some extent, yes.
2023-11-22 13:24:12 <olle        > The Boltzman brain is pretty fun too
2023-11-22 13:24:23 <olle        > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain
2023-11-22 13:24:24 <KipIngram   > Anyway, on the other hand, materialism has no argument for why we are not all just mechanical robots.
2023-11-22 13:24:38 <olle        > That's the thing eh
2023-11-22 13:24:49 <KipIngram   > No explanation for where "mind" even comes from.
2023-11-22 13:24:52 <olle        > Why is consiousness a biological necessity? If it is.
2023-11-22 13:24:58 <KipIngram   > Right, exactly.
2023-11-22 13:25:14 <KipIngram   > We've got GREAT explanations for all the physical stuff, none of which actually call upon consciousness at all.
2023-11-22 13:25:16 <olle        > It's supposed to come from the nerves, of course. But "how" and "why" I don't think we know.
2023-11-22 13:25:18 <Zarutian_iPad> btw I love The Matrix as it made lot of philospohical shorthand available for shooting the breeze
2023-11-22 13:25:25 <KipIngram   > We don't know.
2023-11-22 13:25:39 <KipIngram   > At least not to an extent I find satisfying.
2023-11-22 13:25:50 <KipIngram   > Yeah, great movie.
2023-11-22 13:26:00 <KipIngram   > People do tend to conflate it with the simulation hypothesis, though.
2023-11-22 13:26:16 <KipIngram   > But it's not quite the same - the "minds" in the matrix were still the  minds of bioloical beings.
2023-11-22 13:26:21 <KipIngram   > They were just "wired in."
2023-11-22 13:26:30 <KipIngram   > In the sim hypothesis the whole shooting match is just software.
2023-11-22 13:26:35 <KipIngram   > including the minds
2023-11-22 13:26:48 <Zarutian_iPad> I suspect conscuousness is an emergent phenomina
2023-11-22 13:26:59 <KipIngram   > That's the oft put forward idea, yes.
2023-11-22 13:27:05 <KipIngram   > But no one can explain exactly how.
2023-11-22 13:27:21 <KipIngram   > How many transistors do you add to a computer to "wake it up," and why did that last one make the difference?
2023-11-22 13:27:25 <KipIngram   > They're just SWITCHES.
2023-11-22 13:27:56 <Zarutian_iPad> well the scene I want to refer to is when Morpheous is showing Neo the desolation of the real
2023-11-22 13:28:00 <KipIngram   > Ultimately it's just a big state machine.
2023-11-22 13:28:01 <olle        > Most things in nature gets removed by evolution if they don't serve a good purpose
2023-11-22 13:28:07 <KipIngram   > Yes.
2023-11-22 13:28:11 <olle        > Like those blind eyes in the cave-fish
2023-11-22 13:28:20 <olle        > So consiousness must be needed.
2023-11-22 13:28:22 <KipIngram   > On the other hand, if mind is the fundamental thing to start with, then it can't be removed.
2023-11-22 13:28:49 <Zarutian_iPad> KipIngram: saying it is just switches is like saying paintings are just pigments on canvas
2023-11-22 13:28:53 <olle        > Yeah but "why" would mind be fundamental?
2023-11-22 13:28:56 <KipIngram   > Right - like I said, I lean idealist; I think consciousness is what it's all about from the jump.
2023-11-22 13:29:17 <KipIngram   > I guess SOMETHING has to be fundamental.
2023-11-22 13:29:23 <KipIngram   > It's just a question of which it is.
2023-11-22 13:29:31 <KipIngram   > And you're down to a "because it is" question.
2023-11-22 13:29:50 <olle        > Tegemark talks about "it's our address"
2023-11-22 13:30:09 <olle        > As a solution a number of problems, like the fine-tuning of constants
2023-11-22 13:30:11 <KipIngram   > I haven't heard that particular Tegmark argument.  I know he things "everything is math."
2023-11-22 13:30:16 <Zarutian_iPad> KipIngram: well you have seen me redefine primitives into compond things and sometimes circularly so
2023-11-22 13:30:19 <KipIngram   > I think that's a "map is not the territory" fallacy.
2023-11-22 13:30:23 <olle        > Yea that too, old platonist ^^
2023-11-22 13:30:34 <olle        > I have his book but didn't read it
2023-11-22 13:30:37 <KipIngram   > I think we make math MODELS.
2023-11-22 13:30:43 <KipIngram   > But models are not the thing they model.
2023-11-22 13:31:13 <KipIngram   > I don't want to imply I'm certain of anything.  I lean one way.
2023-11-22 13:31:19 <olle        > I also like Nietzsche's thought that Plato split the world in two - material and spritual/mind, and that we need to forget about that and focus on what we have in front of us.
2023-11-22 13:31:29 <KipIngram   > but really like I said earlier - I think both sides have questions to answer.
2023-11-22 13:32:02 <KipIngram   > I mean, maybe someone puts forward a physical model of consciousness tomorrow that I find amazing.
2023-11-22 13:32:04 <olle        > Time doesn't have a direction in many theories, but obviously it does in nature, so yea. :) It's not a complete description.
2023-11-22 13:32:30 <olle        > That's another topic lacking consensus - the nature of time.
2023-11-22 13:32:44 <KipIngram   > Yeah, the arrow of time is a statistical thing.
2023-11-22 13:32:56 <KipIngram   > I think there are two ways of thinking about time.
2023-11-22 13:32:58 <olle        > Only in thermodynamic theory. Everything else it's just a number.
2023-11-22 13:33:07 <olle        > Everywhere*
2023-11-22 13:33:11 <KipIngram   > "Time as coordinate label" - that's the way it shows up in relativity and so on.
2023-11-22 13:33:28 <KipIngram   > Then "time as experienced," which is always the same - we always feel like time is flowing, for us, at one second per second.
2023-11-22 13:33:39 <olle        > Yep, just as if it behaves like space. Even tho it clearly doesn't. What we percieve, at least.
2023-11-22 13:33:56 <KipIngram   > It's only when we start thinking about what other people "seem to be experiencing" that we get the time dilation stuff.
2023-11-22 13:33:57 <olle        > "Knowledge" is another thing that lack clear definition. I *think*.
2023-11-22 13:34:28 <KipIngram   > Yeah, knowledge/understanding is something different from information/data.
2023-11-22 13:34:34 <olle        > Still, in general relativity - and I'm not a phycisists obviously - you can run time both ways without changing anything.
2023-11-22 13:34:51 <KipIngram   > Yes, all those parts of physics are time reversible.
2023-11-22 13:35:16 <olle        > Something a future theory would have to fix, I guess. For those smart people. With two PhDs. :D
2023-11-22 13:35:21 <KipIngram   > The arrow comes in when you start recognizing that random stuff is happening all the time.
2023-11-22 13:35:42 <KipIngram   > So you're more likely to move from "exceptional situations" toward "common situations" than vice versa.
2023-11-22 13:35:44 <olle        > I think the arrow is quite clear from everyday experience. ^^
2023-11-22 13:36:18 <KipIngram   > It's like shuffling a deck of cards.
2023-11-22 13:36:37 <olle        > I can go back in my room, but I can't go back in time.
2023-11-22 13:36:40 <olle        > Anyway, have to go \o
2023-11-22 13:36:44 <KipIngram   > You COULD shuffle a deck into a perfect red/black separation.
2023-11-22 13:36:46 <KipIngram   > No law against it.
2023-11-22 13:37:01 <KipIngram   > It's just incredibly unlikely, because so many more arrangements are mixed than separate.
2023-11-22 13:37:46 <KipIngram   > Only about 10^-15 portion of the possible arrangements are separated.
2023-11-22 13:38:18 <KipIngram   > Specifically it's 2*(26!)^2 / 52!.
2023-11-22 13:40:09 <KipIngram   > They also talk about time not existing before the Big Bang (or space, actually).  I think that's the "time as coordinate" aspect.  I don't think that means that nothing happened before the Big Bang.
2023-11-22 13:40:47 <KipIngram   > It just wasn't anything that was "in our coordinate space."  We have no way to label the events associated with "before."
2023-11-22 13:41:21 <KipIngram   > Kind of like, what's the latitude and longitude (Earth lat/long) of Tycho Crater on the moon?
2023-11-22 14:04:08 <zelgomer    > : ?branch 0= nip dup not 2 and swap r@ @ and + r@ + r! ;  there has to be a simpler way to do this
2023-11-22 14:04:40 <zelgomer    > i guess i could just quit being stubborn and write it as a code word
2023-11-22 15:23:00 <KipIngram   > What does your 0= return?  1 or -1?
2023-11-22 15:25:28 <Zarutian_iPad> TRUE it returns true and does not follow any false paths of execution
2023-11-22 15:26:02 <KipIngram   > No, I meant the explicit bit pattern for TRUE.
2023-11-22 15:27:35 <KipIngram   > Depending on the details of your system, something like this might work:
2023-11-22 15:27:40 <KipIngram   > : ?branch  0= r@ @ and rp@ +! ;
2023-11-22 15:27:55 <KipIngram   > the ultimate goal there is to modify the return address by the offset.
2023-11-22 15:27:59 <Zarutian_iPad> it is usually 0xFF...FF which in twos compliment signed number is -1
2023-11-22 15:28:17 <KipIngram   > I assumed -1 value for TRUE.
2023-11-22 15:28:38 <Zarutian_iPad> you can do 1 AND to get a 0 or 1
2023-11-22 15:28:43 <KipIngram   > r@ @ is meant to fetch the offset.  And it with either 0 of -1, and add it to the return address.
2023-11-22 15:28:50 <KipIngram   > And then return.
2023-11-22 15:30:50 <KipIngram   > Since you've just called ?branch, the return address will point at the cell where the offset is stored.  And if that offset is relative, then the target is <that value> + offset.
2023-11-22 15:31:24 <KipIngram   > Actually, that's not quite enough.  If you DON'T branch, you still have to nudge the return address past that offset.
2023-11-22 15:31:38 <KipIngram   > So you want to add either CELL or <offset>.
2023-11-22 15:31:49 <KipIngram   > That would complicate it a bit.
2023-11-22 15:33:02 <KipIngram   > Maybe : ?branch  0= r@ @ and cell umax rp@ +! ;
2023-11-22 15:33:23 <Zarutian_iPad> or use that ?: word
2023-11-22 15:33:31 <KipIngram   > Yes, or that.
2023-11-22 15:33:50 <KipIngram   > A shame for it to be several calls deep, though.
2023-11-22 15:40:58 <KipIngram   > In any case, this is going to be a very implementation dependent definition.  What your TRUE flag looks like, exactly how ?branch mechanics work, etc.
2023-11-22 15:41:56 <KipIngram   > zelgomer: it's an awfully easy word to implement as a primitive.  Your instruction pointer will be pointing right at that offset, so it's even easier to get at from a primitive than it is from a definition.
2023-11-22 15:42:40 <KipIngram   > When something is that easy to do as a primitive I generally will.
2023-11-22 16:13:13 <zelgomer    > +KipIngram> Actually, that's not quite enough.  If you DON'T branch, you still have to nudge the return address past that offset.
2023-11-22 16:13:18 <zelgomer    > yep, that's what makes it tricky
2023-11-22 16:13:31 <zelgomer    > i wrote it as a code primitive first, i'm just trying to be clever
2023-11-22 16:13:43 <zelgomer    > like i said before. forth brings out the worst in me. i have a problem
2023-11-22 16:14:01 <thrig       > if they start forthing at the mouth...
2023-11-22 16:14:06 <zelgomer    > Zarutian_iPad> or use that ?: word
2023-11-22 16:15:01 <zelgomer    > not familiar with ?:, i'm assuming it's a choose named after c's ternary? i could do that, but then i'm just deferring to some other code primitive to branch which seems to defeat the purpose LOL
2023-11-22 16:20:10 <zelgomer    > on the subject of obsessive compulsive disorders: should i name it ?branch, or bz, or (?branch), or (bz)
2023-11-22 16:22:30 <thrig       > bz seems kinda short
2023-11-22 16:38:27 <zelgomer    > gotta save space :)
2023-11-22 16:40:10 <thrig       > 
ACTION eyes the 228G free on /home

2023-11-22 16:48:33 <zelgomer    > look at scrooge mcduck over here with his 228GB
2023-11-22 16:50:36 <thrig       > too much disk space, too much memory, too high a video resolution
2023-11-22 16:54:20 <zelgomer    > there are starving children in africa who have never even seen a gigabyte and here you are with 228 of them you're not even using
2023-11-22 16:58:16 <Zarutian_iPad> zelgomer: so many still?
2023-11-22 16:58:58 <zelgomer    > i guess the children of africa are a hungry bunch
2023-11-22 16:59:43 <Zarutian_iPad> I can remember this same phrase or similiar from when I was a wee lad
2023-11-22 17:00:20 <thrig       > something about eating your brocolli because starving africans. not very logically sound?
2023-11-22 17:00:21 <zelgomer    > well that's where i got it from. i suppose it's possible we were both wee lads around roughly the same time :)
2023-11-22 17:00:45 <Zarutian_iPad> I thought those children had all starved to death by now. But what do I know? They might be immortal never aging and always hungry.
2023-11-22 17:01:08 <thrig       > maybe Tantalus had children
2023-11-22 17:02:09 <Zarutian_iPad> btw anything of the brassica genus is vile.
2023-11-22 19:04:32 <veltas      > Words of the day are always M* M*/ M/
2023-11-22 19:04:44 <veltas      > The trusty trio
2023-11-22 19:18:54 <thrig       > M*/ Anderson
2023-11-22 19:19:35 <Zarutian_iPad> The product and quotent is inevitable.
2023-11-22 20:09:19 <zelgomer    > doesn't it bother anyone else that the resulte from /mod are in the reverse order from the name
2023-11-22 20:14:28 <thrig       > it's backwards of lisp so checks out
2023-11-22 21:10:21 <KipIngram   > zelgomer: I like bz or ?br or something like that.  I *like* "short."
2023-11-22 21:11:00 <KipIngram   > But it's not about saving space on the drive for me - it's about saving space on the screen.
2023-11-22 21:11:29 <KipIngram   > Getting more functionality into my "one image eye space."
2023-11-22 21:13:11 <KipIngram   > And yes, it does bother me a little that those results are reversed.
2023-11-22 21:13:28 <KipIngram   > I'd probably call it /% though.
2023-11-22 21:14:25 <KipIngram   > some folks might say it's not reversed, though.  They'd say reading from left to right you see quotient and them modulo, and printing results from the stack you get quotient first and then modulo.
2023-11-22 21:14:44 <KipIngram   > We read the name in one direction and use the results in the other direction.
2023-11-22 21:20:17 <zelgomer    > (i know /mod is usually the primitive but for sake of argument)  : /mod 2dup / -rot mod ;  the way i read it implies that's the order of operations, and since we tend to write stack effects left to write, i see that as "q r"
2023-11-22 21:25:40 <KipIngram   > I think you should do it whichever way please you the most, actually.  How do you expect to use it?  If it's for numeric output, you'll be getting the digits least significant to most significant, right?  That implies you  might want easiest access to the remainder.
2023-11-22 21:26:23 <KipIngram   > And have the quotient waiting for you to carry on with after each digit.
2023-11-22 21:37:49 <zelgomer    > oh yeah, numeric output....i forgot about that