2023-12-04 04:34:33 <olle        > Heyo
2023-12-04 04:34:37 <olle        > Word of the day/week?
2023-12-04 08:58:14 <KipIngram   > xelebar: Yeah, that is a little "unfortunate" there's that one exception.  One of the things I like about the Riemann sphere is that it removes that issue (but even then 1/0 isn't 0 - it's infinity, which exists as a well defined point on the Riemann sphere).
2023-12-04 09:05:22 <KipIngram   > I think they actually "phrase" that exception as 0 being the only item in the field that doesn't have an inverse.  That caveat is generally built into the definition of "field," isn't it?
2023-12-04 10:29:34 <olle        > Perhaps `throw` as the word of the week?
2023-12-04 11:16:34 <KipIngram   > Works for me, olle.
2023-12-04 11:17:02 <KipIngram   > Most Forth words are so simple that they're not terribly interesting as a "word of the week."
2023-12-04 11:17:16 <KipIngram   > Only a handful of them bring really intriguing operation to the table.
2023-12-04 11:17:23 <KipIngram   > throw seems to qualify in that way to me.
2023-12-04 11:17:45 <KipIngram   > I mean, + wouldn't be a very interesting word of the week.   :-)
2023-12-04 11:19:31 <olle        > Hehe
2023-12-04 11:34:06 <KipIngram   > I am guessing that throw is similar to my |} word.  It restores a previously saved state for both the data stack and the return stack, effectively moving me back up a call hierarchy in one fast shot.
2023-12-04 11:34:32 <KipIngram   > It maintains TOS as a "return value" from the deeper code.
2023-12-04 11:40:10 <olle        > https://old.reddit.com/r/Forth/comments/18ao2wu/word_of_the_week_throw/? - reddit thread
2023-12-04 12:30:25 <KipIngram   > You know, I've never in any home had an HVAC thermostat that was capable of switching automatically between "cool" and "heat" modes.
2023-12-04 12:30:47 <KipIngram   > That has always struck me as a real shortcoming and I've wondered why they make so many of them that way.
2023-12-04 12:31:06 <KipIngram   > Works great in either mode, but getting between then is a manual operation.
2023-12-04 12:31:28 <KipIngram   > And in my two-story house that means a hike up the stairs to get the one up there, because you sure don't want them in conflicting modes.
2023-12-04 12:31:54 <KipIngram   > At certain times of year in this area it's common to need cool during the day and heat at  night.
2023-12-04 12:32:32 <thrig       > giving the featherless bird exercise can also be important
2023-12-04 12:32:49 <KipIngram   > Oh, that reminds me...
2023-12-04 12:33:06 <KipIngram   > I just bought a book of puzzles called "To Mock a Mockingbird."
2023-12-04 12:33:26 <KipIngram   > It's got an extended set of puzzles built around birds each type of which has a certain birdsong behavior.
2023-12-04 12:33:34 <KipIngram   > Basically it gets into computing theory.
2023-12-04 12:33:49 <KipIngram   > One bird repeats back what you say to it, one makes this kind of change, one repeats twice, etc.
2023-12-04 12:34:09 <KipIngram   > I suppose you can wind up with a line of birds sitting on a power line or something that implements an algorithm.
2023-12-04 12:34:13 <KipIngram   > implement
2023-12-04 12:34:37 <KipIngram   > Say something to the first one and it gets "passed down the line," and the last one calls out your output.
2023-12-04 12:35:05 <KipIngram   > One of those Strange Loop videos I watched last week made reference to the book, so I thought I'd check it out.
2023-12-04 12:35:33 <KipIngram   > I don't see that it has any answers in it, though.
2023-12-04 12:35:56 <KipIngram   > So far on the first few puzzles I'm fairly certain I have the right answer, but I'm bound to run into a few that make me want to "peek."
2023-12-04 12:36:18 <KipIngram   > Plus, official "you are right" confirmation is always pleasant.
2023-12-04 13:21:43 <KipIngram   > Oh - there are the answers.  :-)
2023-12-04 13:26:50 <Zarutian_iPad> 
ACTION skimmed https://www.thecodedmessage.com/posts/endianness/ and sees no mention why little endianess came to be

2023-12-04 13:27:40 <Zarutian_iPad> afaict tell a designer at Intel made an mistake in the ALU
2023-12-04 13:31:44 <thrig       > accidents of history
2023-12-04 13:33:15 <KipIngram   > There was a famous bug in one of those processors that affected the main multiplication operation.
2023-12-04 13:33:26 <KipIngram   > There was concern about it wrecking accounting software and so on.
2023-12-04 13:33:32 <KipIngram   > God, that was a long time ago.
2023-12-04 13:34:13 <Zarutian_iPad> yeah, Intel should have gone bankrupt when Toshiba started to eat their memory chip lunch
2023-12-04 13:35:01 <Zarutian_iPad> but they pivoted into processors that they were and in many cases still are crap at designing
2023-12-04 13:36:33 <KipIngram   > Well, they managed to pull it off.
2023-12-04 13:36:38 <KipIngram   > By hook or by crook.
2023-12-04 13:36:49 <KipIngram   > Because you really can't argue with their sales history.
2023-12-04 13:37:31 <KipIngram   > I just lost a little of what admiration I did have for them when they virtualized the architecture.
2023-12-04 13:37:36 <Zarutian_iPad> they just had very good sales department in a sense
2023-12-04 13:37:52 <KipIngram   > It was years before I figured out they'd done that, and I was unimpressed.
2023-12-04 13:38:11 <KipIngram   > In a sense they weren't even making HARDWARE any more.
2023-12-04 13:38:19 <KipIngram   > I know that's clearly not true, but hopefully you see what i mean.
2023-12-04 13:38:39 <KipIngram   > Going to a microcoded design felt a little like cheating to me.
2023-12-04 13:38:47 <KipIngram   > Which is silly, but... the purist in me balked.
2023-12-04 13:39:03 <Zarutian_iPad> virtualized? mean strapped on an address stranslation that IBM 370 had for years prior
2023-12-04 13:39:19 <KipIngram   > Well, and all that register renaming and so on.
2023-12-04 13:39:27 <KipIngram   > Or maybe that's what you mean.
2023-12-04 13:39:34 <KipIngram   > Or part of what you mean.
2023-12-04 13:40:05 <Zarutian_iPad> oh, you mean when they had to cheat with RISC microcode to actually get decent performance?
2023-12-04 13:40:20 <KipIngram   > So far I got all the puzzles right except one.  That one felt a bit like a trick, though - I overlooked a corner case.
2023-12-04 13:40:35 <KipIngram   > I don't have that level of familiarity with it.
2023-12-04 13:45:17 <KipIngram   > The question was whether the sum or the product of a sports team's season scores was likely to be larger.  I thought about all the different kinds of sports I'm familiar with and how they score and it seemed pretty clear that the product would be larger.  But I completely forgot to consider the possibility that at least once during the season the team might get a zero score.
2023-12-04 13:45:42 <KipIngram   > It really depends on the sport.  Football, baseball - sure; zero happens.  Basketball?  Very unlikely.
2023-12-04 13:46:10 <KipIngram   > But that one just felt like it was pulling a bit of a trick.
2023-12-04 13:46:44 <KipIngram   > I doubt I've ever in my life seen a basketball "shutout.'
2023-12-04 13:47:19 <thrig       > or golf
2023-12-04 13:48:57 <KipIngram   > Another good one.
2023-12-04 13:50:31 <KipIngram   > Oh, you know - it was actually stipulated to be a baseball team, now that I read it again.
2023-12-04 13:50:50 <KipIngram   > So, fair enough - at least one shutout in a season is plenty common.
2023-12-04 13:50:58 <KipIngram   > There are a LOT of baseball games in a season.
2023-12-04 14:08:26 <thrig       > and likely that good pitchers get setup against crummy swingers
2023-12-04 22:06:53 <xelxebar    > KipIngram: Yeah, the one point compactifications (Reimann circle, sphere, etc.) do let you define x/0 for non-zero x, but then you just introduce other undefined entities: ∞-∞ and ∞·0, and 0/0 remains undefined.
2023-12-04 22:08:07 <xelxebar    > The trick with wheels is that it makes multiplicitive inversion a total operation, just like negation as additive inversion is total.
2023-12-04 22:11:38 <xelxebar    > Wheels are a bit more systematic in a sense, but the reason they're called a wheel is because the one-dimensional case looks like the Reimann line but with an extra point: ⊙.