<joelteon>
while we're on the subject, i think it would be cool to have a user() function in the toplevel that fetches the USER env variable, and a connect() operator that opens a TCP stream to an arbitrary IP
<joelteon>
actually it would be cool
<joelteon>
if you could just import every existing python library into the language as an operator
<joelteon>
that would make it a lot simpler
yorick has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<whitequark>
some guy wants me to review a book about LLVM
<cuttle>
whitequark: you are definitely knowledgeable about the area, i would say
alextgordon has quit [Quit: My iMac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
brr has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
brr has joined #elliottcable
<whitequark>
cuttle: not sure if good enough
<cuttle>
whitequark: well, that's probably a better attitude to have than being sure you are when you're not
<cuttle>
whitequark: i'd say go for it
<cuttle>
whitequark: you know imposter syndrome?
brr has quit [Quit: its all brred out aye btch i cant see ya]
brr has joined #elliottcable
brr has quit [Client Quit]
<whitequark>
cuttle: heard of it
<whitequark>
imo it's a bunch of hand-holding bullshit in the general spirit of "everybody wins in the game"
<whitequark>
sure, you can probably go and build an environment for any kind of character, but how are you supposed to make decisions when you're never sure of them even in that environment? much less do any actual work
<whitequark>
it's more like, i know llvm well enough to see how fucking huge and complex it is and how tiny my island of knowledge is relative to the whole thing
<whitequark>
especially since compilers are incredibly tricky, it's probably along the most dense code in existence
<cuttle>
all the same, you're one of the first people i'd turn to with a question regarding llvm
<cuttle>
and i mean, even if you're not perfectly knowledgeable you can still give a useful review from whatever perspective you have
<cuttle>
whitequark: i want to know what you think of my idea
<joelteon>
i'm surprised they used bootstrap and still made it look awful
<cuttle>
for a smalltalk/lisp-machine/urbit utopia
eligrey has quit [Quit: Leaving]
<cuttle>
so all data is chunks of binary, coupled with manifests
<cuttle>
for how to treat it
<cuttle>
so like what structure it has and what parts are atomic
<cuttle>
so like, all code is aware that what it's handling is just binary data
<cuttle>
so the abstractions aren't fully opaque, you can peek beneath them, but if you do you lose guarantees etc.
<cuttle>
and all code is itself just binary data with a particular type of structure
<cuttle>
probably a graph, with the atoms as atomic/fundamental operations
<cuttle>
directed graph
duckinator has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
duckinator has joined #elliottcable
Sgeo has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
yorick has joined #elliottcable
yorickpeterse has quit [Quit: The NSA took my baby]
yorickpeterse has joined #elliottcable
yorickpeterse has quit [Client Quit]
yorickpeterse has joined #elliottcable
PragCypher has joined #elliottcable
PragCypher has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
PragCypher has joined #elliottcable
sharkbot has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
sharkbot has joined #elliottcable
fwg has joined #elliottcable
niggler has joined #elliottcable
alextgordon has joined #elliottcable
PragCypher has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<whitequark>
cuttle: I don't see how it
<whitequark>
's any different from, like, x86
<cuttle>
whitequark: well, first of all, it wouldn't be a von neumann structure
<cuttle>
whitequark: data isn't in one big store
<cuttle>
it's distributed down to the level of single instructions
<cuttle>
like, computers on a network sending messages to each other
<cuttle>
but also, tiny instruction-sized nodes sending messages to each other
<cuttle>
and the graphs representing code represent a graph of nodes
<cuttle>
that you can send over a network
<whitequark>
do you intend this to be a practical approach?
<whitequark>
or just a fascinating model?
<whitequark>
I'm asking this because I've never seen graphs implemented in silicon for anything remotely close to production (and there's a reason!)
<whitequark>
and what you're describing, if possible, is so incredibly inefficient gate-wise that it's probably useless in practice
<whitequark>
i.e. a software emulation of the same model would be as good or better.
<cuttle>
ok
<whitequark>
graphs map to existing hw in a really shitty way, shitty enough that on x86, for example, graphs impose huge performance penalties for their lack of data locality
<whitequark>
similarly to linked lists, but it's easier with lists
<cuttle>
well i mean it's an imaginary processor architecture
<whitequark>
slightly
<whitequark>
ok
<cuttle>
not intended to be built on top of x86
<whitequark>
what's the rationale?
<cuttle>
well, x86 and arm and everything is just trying to eke out more cycles per second
<whitequark>
(on top of) is it intended to build over existing silicon processes?
<whitequark>
cuttle: well, no
<cuttle>
using more power, using more pipelining logic, etc.
<cuttle>
and it gets massively complex
<cuttle>
at doing one thing at a time really quickly
<whitequark>
for a few years, x86 and arm are trying to get more cycles per watt
<cuttle>
i feel like making it massively parallel at the lowest level would be the best
<cuttle>
ok, but they're still trying to improve doing one thing at once
<whitequark>
no
<whitequark>
why do you think there are 8-core chips in the smartphones?
<cuttle>
sure, but that's 8
<cuttle>
compare to a gpu
<cuttle>
it's almost ridiculous
<whitequark>
run me irssi on a gpu
<cuttle>
that's what i'm trying to think about
<cuttle>
a more general-purpose massively parallel architecture
<whitequark>
do you know how gpus are organized?
<cuttle>
yes
<cuttle>
lots of simd
<whitequark>
gpus are not control-parallel, they're data-parallel
<whitequark>
yes
<whitequark>
the problem is
<whitequark>
with any contemporary language, and I mean literally any, the fundamental data flow is sequential
<whitequark>
basically, lots of data dependencies
<whitequark>
you can relax some of them in e.g. calculation loops, but the vast majority of stuff is sequential
<cuttle>
yes, and that's why i intend something similar to mostly-pure frp to run on it
<cuttle>
make data dependencies extremely explicit
<cuttle>
in fact, a program is defined by data dependencies
<cuttle>
down to the "assembly" level
<cuttle>
that's what the graph of instruction nodes is
<cuttle>
whether the graph is just represented using local pointers or whatever
<whitequark>
no
<whitequark>
you need some kind of hw structure to propagate changes through the graph
<whitequark>
not unlike cache
<whitequark>
and it's going to be a massive bottleneck in your design
<whitequark>
either speed-wise, becoming a single choke point for all your cores OR being distributed to all cores so that the signal would traverse from one end of the chip to another during hundreds of cycles
<whitequark>
or space-wise, eating gigantic amounts of transistors and power.
<cuttle>
data literally just propagates from an output to an input
<cuttle>
and i'm not sure what the large-scale structure of the graph would be
<cuttle>
maybe like hierarchical, with groups of smaller groups of smaller groups
<cuttle>
probably not the same as an fpga
<whitequark>
sure, that's possible, there's existing designs that look somewhat like that
<whitequark>
what do you do if your program doesn't fit in the chip?
<whitequark>
either data-wise or control-wise
<cuttle>
I would genuinely want to see those
<cuttle>
well, that's like saying what do you do if you run out of memory
<cuttle>
if you have like a 4k computer
<whitequark>
out of *cache*
<whitequark>
for example
<cuttle>
there are some things you just can't do
<whitequark>
if you're out of cache, you can go to memory
<whitequark>
because cache is chunked linear and simple (compared to your thing)
<cuttle>
i haven't thought of an analogous mechanism to swapping
<whitequark>
ok
<cuttle>
because i am: not very knowledgeable about this
<cuttle>
and i haven't designed in at the verilog level of detail
<cuttle>
but for instance
<cuttle>
just taking another chunk of nodes
<cuttle>
and hooking them up with a transparent connection between them would give you more nodes to work with
<whitequark>
it's not a hierarchical interconnect, more like grid
<cuttle>
and i intend to have a very general mechanism for both making network connections transparent, and handling errors that occur in them, in the language
<whitequark>
ok so
<whitequark>
wanna design this with me?
<whitequark>
I'm interested
<cuttle>
definitely
<cuttle>
yeah i feel like i want it to be more granular than what the epiphany thing looks like
<cuttle>
lots more
<cuttle>
but yeah
<whitequark>
sure
<whitequark>
I only said it's similar
* cuttle
nods
<whitequark>
so
<whitequark>
let's go from the lowest level
<whitequark>
what can a node operate?
<cuttle>
also i feel like a grid would have lots more tangly topological problems than a hierarchy would be
<cuttle>
i'm thinking nodes should work with like, the word size
<whitequark>
hierarchy is more limited, plus grid is way easier to implement
<cuttle>
ok
<cuttle>
i just don't want lots of NP-hard layout problems every time you run a program
<whitequark>
that's going to happen either way
<whitequark>
maybe think of alternatives
<whitequark>
1) make all nodes semantically equivalent and make the hardware eat the communication cost
<cuttle>
i kind of want it to be really local
<whitequark>
2) make all nodes semantically equivalent and make the hardware dynamically move them to minimize cost
<whitequark>
well, two things about that
<cuttle>
so you can't communicate from one side to the other
<whitequark>
first, programs sure are mostly local, but it's like big local clusters with few long-distance connections
<whitequark>
and you've gotta handle those well
<whitequark>
second, detecting that locality is not trivial
<whitequark>
and you can easily fall into a VLIW trap
<whitequark>
"let's make a dumb CPU and a clever compiler"
<cuttle>
what's that?
<whitequark>
that never works
<whitequark>
look at Itanic
<whitequark>
which is, btw, called Itanic for a reason
<whitequark>
I think it took Intel at least a decade to develop a reasonably good compiler for it
<whitequark>
and that means they can't really play with its microarchitecture anymore, unlike x86
<cuttle>
yeah, i want it to be operationally transparent, i don't want to have like fpga hours-long compilation
<whitequark>
so, the problems you have in such chip are pretty much... special relativity
<whitequark>
you have a speed of light, the speed with which information propagates
<whitequark>
and it's painfully finite
<whitequark>
see, this affects even traditional multicore architectures, I believe everything above 8 cores
<whitequark>
which is why you don't see very much 16-core CPUs around :p
<cuttle>
ok
<whitequark>
they have caches, and caches talk to each other via various interesting interconnects, and above 8 those interconnects really become the bottleneck and your stuff stops getting faster
<cuttle>
well, languages like erlang are built around message-passing over a network, above a certain level of granularity
<whitequark>
not sure about the network part
<cuttle>
"distributed systems"
<whitequark>
it's built around message-passing, because MP allows it to stay relatively pure
<cuttle>
i have never used erlang in a distributed system
<cuttle>
but
<whitequark>
practical erlang would really require having 10000s of processes on a single machine
<whitequark>
aiui the distributed part of erlang is not so much about performance as about reliability
<cuttle>
sure
<cuttle>
would it be as much of a problem when you're not based around memory writes and reads, but basically every communication is an interrupt?
<cuttle>
because an 8-core x86 would be a *very* different beast than what i am imagining
<whitequark>
interrupt is not communication
<whitequark>
it's one wire that says "something's just happened"
<whitequark>
well, it technically is, but you aren't transferring much data with it
<whitequark>
see, I'm not really talking about the x86 part of a 8-core x86
<whitequark>
I'm talking about its cache coherency system
<cuttle>
not interrupt, i just mean communication would be much different from
<cuttle>
write to this cache
<cuttle>
someone else reads from it
<whitequark>
it's basically a hierarchical system (L0, L1, L2), which has a topological interconnect, and which has nodes communicating with each other in terms of cache lines (64 bytes)
<whitequark>
so quite similar to what you do
<whitequark>
let me elaborate
<whitequark>
"write to this cache, someone else reads from it" is exactly your case of heavily nonlocal communication
<whitequark>
I'm not interested in local communication, it's simple, the problem is nonlocal
<whitequark>
because if you don't do nonlocal quickly, you're just going to wait all the time
<cuttle>
well, either you:
<whitequark>
so if it's ring interconnect on a 8 core system, the core wanting to write must wait 4 cache transfer times for all the others to invalidate this
<cuttle>
do a bunch of instructions in a row on some things in memory, and wait for that to be *done*, and then you can show that on the screen
<cuttle>
or send the data through multiple little things that change it, and then send it to the screen
<whitequark>
your view of contemporary architectures seems to be overly simple
<whitequark>
for example x86 has instruction scheduler for a very long time
<whitequark>
it's a huge-ass buffer which contains 160 instructions (on my measly notebook cpu) from which 3-5 (max) instructions get selected to execute in parallel at each cycle
<cuttle>
sure
<whitequark>
and usually less than that, because of *actual dependencies in the code*
<whitequark>
not artifical dependencies due to limitations of von-neumann or x86
<cuttle>
well that's because the dependency analysis is *very* local
<cuttle>
with a language built around separating independent computations
<whitequark>
locality of dependence analysis makes it tractable
<cuttle>
you can do a lot more at once
<whitequark>
for both the cpu and the compiler
<cuttle>
it's also tractable
<cuttle>
if your program is literally just a list a of dependencies
<whitequark>
I think that's a wrong way to think about it
<cuttle>
why?
<whitequark>
my program is, for example, Qt
<whitequark>
you can write it in C++, you can write it in cuttle-frp
<whitequark>
that changes representation, not semantics
<whitequark>
I don't see how rewriting it in cuttle-frp makes it inherently more tractable for analysis than in C++
<whitequark>
there's a lot of projects like that, aimed for looking at a very small, very well-behaved (but still practically useful) C/C++ subset and figuring out data dependencies
<whitequark>
I don't think it's tractable
<cuttle>
well, i don't think it's tractable in a subset of c++
<cuttle>
but that's so incredible different a thing from what i propose
<whitequark>
ok, explain it then
<cuttle>
a = b + c
<cuttle>
b = d * e
<cuttle>
there, now you have your dependencies already determined
<cuttle>
that's a program that continuously executes
<cuttle>
d or e change, b changes
<cuttle>
because the change is propagated
<cuttle>
and when b or c changes, a chnages
<cuttle>
and propagates its change to what depends on it
<cuttle>
your program is literally just a list of dependencies
<whitequark>
that's an overly simplistic view
<cuttle>
how?
<whitequark>
write me a grep in your language
<whitequark>
a very abstract grep, think there's an input port and output port, both byte-wise
<cuttle>
i haven't thought through how the higher level libraries would look; this is more conceptual
<whitequark>
"stdin" / "stdout"
<cuttle>
ok
<cuttle>
but, there would be an input string, and input search string
<whitequark>
it's not high-level, just logic constructs and ports
<whitequark>
let's say input search string is hardcoded
<cuttle>
ok, well if there is high enough bandwidth available it'd take in the string in parallel; if not, chunks of it in sequence
<whitequark>
too conceptual, write some pseudocode :p
<whitequark>
then we can discuss how it executes
<cuttle>
qute honestly i don't know what an array/collection system would look like
<whitequark>
oh my motherfucking god
<whitequark>
snow!!
<whitequark>
finally
<cuttle>
haha
<whitequark>
it's like, two months late
<whitequark>
ok so
<whitequark>
array/collection stuff is really important
<whitequark>
because that's a weak point of your architecture
<whitequark>
you excel at working with words and suck at working with blocks of memory
<whitequark>
not unlike gpus
<whitequark>
note how most general-purpose software these days is built around handling huge chunks of memory
* cuttle
nods
<whitequark>
ok so
<whitequark>
figure out arrays :p
<cuttle>
yeah :p
<cuttle>
might be necessary to have some kind of hybrid thing where there are more permament stores, which is i guess what fpgas do
<whitequark>
fpgas really don't limit you to any particlular architecture, except most of them force synchronous logic
<cuttle>
what i mean si that
<cuttle>
fgpas have all these general-purpose gates
<cuttle>
and then throughout sometimes there are memory stores, right?
<whitequark>
there's block RAM, but you could have distributed RAM too
<whitequark>
block RAM is just cheaper
<whitequark>
there's very little semantic difference between those
<cuttle>
what's distributed ram
<whitequark>
distributed RAM is RAM assembled from general-purpose gates
<cuttle>
ah, the gates can be ram
<cuttle>
ok
<whitequark>
block RAM is, well, just RAM blocks. prefabricated as such
<whitequark>
well of course, you can make triggers with those
<cuttle>
ignoring the immediately feasibility of this idea when I tell you it:
<cuttle>
i really like the idea of like
<cuttle>
elastically expandable simd
<cuttle>
like you have, add one to each thing in this array
<cuttle>
and the array flows in
<cuttle>
and it either has logic to handle not having enough nodes to let all of the array in at once, in which case it breaks it up into chunks that it does one by one
<cuttle>
or it does it all at once
<cuttle>
and i mean there are tons of problems with that idea
<whitequark>
clang can do that
<cuttle>
hm, tell me more about what clang does
<whitequark>
well, if you have a loop over an array, it looks if it's profitable to turn it into simd operations
<whitequark>
in which case it rewrites the loop to go by chunks of 16 for example
<whitequark>
and then adds an epilogue to handle the remaining 0-15 elements
<alextgordon>
surely anybody doing anything illegal knows how to use a VPN
<whitequark>
it's obviously not targeted at anybody doing anything illegal
<alextgordon>
yeah... that's what's worrying
<whitequark>
worrying, my ass
<alextgordon>
I think they're probably genuine, but just catastrophically incompetent
<whitequark>
no.
<whitequark>
or rather, it's laser-guided incompetency
<alextgordon>
xD
<whitequark>
I assure you there's plenty of people in the government who actually understand what the fuck they're doing
<alextgordon>
ehhh
<alextgordon>
here's how they see it
<alextgordon>
lots of voters think porn is bad because think of the children, so let's do a token gesture to block it, and win their votes
<whitequark>
maybe those old geezers don't understand internet (arguably). what they perfectly understand is control, and they want more of it, and this is not an accident.
<alextgordon>
hm I just read the link, seems like he's not talking about blocking porn here, but beheadings
<alextgordon>
that was last month!
<alextgordon>
:P
<alextgordon>
oh I could go on all day about the ways they're trying to boost "support" for the military (and therefore foreign policy)
<alextgordon>
I find it quite disturbing. they're pushing this "armed forces day" where we're supposed to bow down and worship the military or something
<alextgordon>
*that* always ends well
<whitequark>
lol there's one here
<purr>
lol
<whitequark>
when drunk commandos are sitting in fountains and beating each other with bottles
<alextgordon>
xD
<whitequark>
it sort of instills fear and respect, yes
<whitequark>
in a way
<alextgordon>
if it continues we're going to end up like america where the military is so much of our GDP we couldn't get rid of it if we wanted to
<whitequark>
you know
<whitequark>
I want to get the fuck out of this planet
<alextgordon>
ha
<alextgordon>
hey lots of south america is uninhabited
<alextgordon>
or russia... for that matter
<whitequark>
yeah, exile in those parts of russia was a punishment not too long ago
<whitequark>
(in pretty much all of the russian history when there was no freedom of movement, ie most of it)
* whitequark
is watching tsukasa discuss mayonnaise on egg dishes
<alextgordon>
the internet really needs to create it's own territory
<whitequark>
there's no "the internet"
<alextgordon>
sure there is, reddit!
<alextgordon>
can't all those bitcoin billionaires buy a chunk of a poor country?
<whitequark>
*facepalm*
<alextgordon>
and set up a utopia there
<whitequark>
talking about bitcoins, btce is at 860
<whitequark>
seems like buying at 750 wasn't dumb after all
<alextgordon>
wow
<alextgordon>
bitstamp 878
<alextgordon>
it's up $1 since I last looked!
<whitequark>
I'm just going to wait for 6-12 months at least. if it crashes, I'll buy more.
<alextgordon>
r/bitcoin seems to think we've passed "eternal september"
<joelteon>
some "eternal"
<alextgordon>
eternal november?
<alextgordon>
i.e. the price isn't going to go down now
<whitequark>
dunno, shit happens
<alextgordon>
but we've had multiple exchanges going offline, nothing DID happen
<alextgordon>
in the past that would have killed it
<whitequark>
I strongly suspect this is the case, yes
<whitequark>
also did ec cash out entirely?
<alextgordon>
not sure
<whitequark>
might have been a bad idea :p
<alextgordon>
he probably still has a few
<alextgordon>
whitequark: he's already a millionaire by proxy, doubt he cares
<whitequark>
ltc:btc also grew 2x
<alextgordon>
yep
<whitequark>
and ltc:usd by a smaller amount, which is... weird
<whitequark>
shouldn't it have gained value via its link to btc?
<alextgordon>
you can test it out
<whitequark>
hm?
<alextgordon>
get the ratios of each of the three pairs
<alextgordon>
they should equal 1
<alextgordon>
(there's six pairs I guess if you include reversed)
<whitequark>
right
<whitequark>
there's a small deviation but that's to be expected
<alextgordon>
the deviations really go to show the problems with bitcoin exchanges though
<alextgordon>
liquidity is terrible
<alextgordon>
I wonder how regular forex accounts handle it
<alextgordon>
it's not like trading currency online is something new
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
whitequark: I don't hedge my bets, on principle.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
two “principles” (probably isn't accurate to call them that, because it costs me demonstrably less to *hold* them than it would to someone else … hence, also, why I don't evangelize them or convey them as advice to my friends) that being financially secure allow me to hold:
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
1. I don't use credit. On anything. I am in debt of exactly $US 0.00, to any system or corporation, anywhere. (That will be changing soon, but under close scrutiny and for no further reason than to build myself a credit-history.)
<cuttle>
hi ELLIOTTCABLE
<cuttle>
hi alextgordon
<alextgordon>
hi cuttle
<alextgordon>
hi ELLIOTTCABLE
<cuttle>
alextgordon: say the word scuttle
<alextgordon>
SCUTTLE OFF
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
2. I don't ‘hedge bets,’ by which I mean I make any and all financial decisions without allowing myself worry (before-hand), or regret (afterwards.) Once I've analyzed my position and *taken* an action, I know I did so in full knowledge of all aspects, of the consequences.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
alexgordon: was noticing that, the other day
<whitequark>
also I can't make fried eggs, that's like, the definition of culinary incompetence
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
anyway. I have couches and fronts to buy.
<whitequark>
:/
<alexgordon>
whitequark: WAT
<whitequark>
alexgordon: seriously
<alexgordon>
whitequark: can you at least boil an egg?
<whitequark>
I just did them and it like
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
I've decided to invest 25k (the minimum to open a new account) of my Bitcoin, make it a “play account”
<whitequark>
tastes like shit
<alexgordon>
although boiling is harder than frying IMO
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
by which I mean, be *far* more aggressive with the investments than I've ever risked before
<whitequark>
alexgordon: lol, boiling is really easy
<purr>
lol
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
since, in some ways, this is free money for me: it literally cost me nothing but immense luck to acquire.
<alexgordon>
whitequark: depends how hard you want it
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
and the rest, I'm spending on speakers.
<whitequark>
alexgordon: pour water, add eggs, wait 10 minutes
<alexgordon>
<alexgordon> whitequark: depends how hard you want it
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
'cause fuck yeah, celebrating by rewarding oneself for doing absolutely nothing of value.
<alexgordon>
ELLIOTTCABLE: lol you and your speakers
<whitequark>
ELLIOTTCABLE: :3
<alexgordon>
jeannicolas: elliott is buying speakers again
<whitequark>
alexgordon: I boil eggs like all of the time
<whitequark>
did you know you can't overboil an egg
<whitequark>
?
<alexgordon>
yeah
<whitequark>
I mean you can run out of water and then horrible, horrible things will happen
<whitequark>
I know
<whitequark>
I had that once
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
torn between Martin Logan's Montis, and their Summit.
<whitequark>
I couldn't stand looking at eggs for half a year afterwards
<alexgordon>
I like hardboiled eggs, I just boil it for 7 minutes
<alexgordon>
nothing bad happens
<alexgordon>
ever
<whitequark>
because the smell came up in my mind each time, and it was so horrible I was almost puking at the mere thought of eggs
<whitequark>
also fuck you for making me remember that
<whitequark>
brb
<alexgordon>
LOL you ran out of water
<whitequark>
forgot about them
<whitequark>
totally
<alexgordon>
whitequark: thing with eggs is that they're covered in dried chicken vaginal fluid
<alexgordon>
remember that next time!
<whitequark>
alexgordon: I know
<whitequark>
thing with your room is that it's covered by your own shed skin cells, various arthropodes eating those skin cells and shitting right there, and your own thinly distributed fecal matter
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
I've wanted a full Martin Logan set since I was, uh, wee.
<jeannicolas>
again wat?
<cuttle>
frying eggs is what i do when i don't want to put in effort into a snack
<jeannicolas>
speakers? did ELLIOTTCABLE buy speakers before?
<cuttle>
worth learning, one of the easiest things you can do :p
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
I had wet dreams about Martin Logan fronts and centers, and Velodyne subs, when I was like 14.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
I long since decided I would spend money on home-theater before a car.
<alexgordon>
ELLIOTTCABLE: when you were in NC you bought massive speakers
* whitequark
slaps cuttle around a bit with a large trout
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
“massive” lol
<purr>
lol
<jeannicolas>
ohhh yeah I kinda remember that
<whitequark>
alexgordon: in the future
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
I spent, like, four grand total.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
not including the subs.
<whitequark>
don't try to disgust me
<whitequark>
won't work.
<jeannicolas>
oh only 4k LOL
<jeannicolas>
lame
<whitequark>
and you may regret it
<alexgordon>
ELLIOTTCABLE: oh right and you were talking about subs
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
subs are JBL, not Velodyne, either … they're *big*, but not particularly audiophiliac.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
those are sitting behind me, right now. They're filthy. :P
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
need to clean them up *bad*.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
but yeah. Nice and loud, but not so important, in the long-run … especially living in an apartment in downtown Chicago. I'mma have to keep those bad boys turned *way* down, 99% of the time. Obviously
<jeannicolas>
I have a JBL speaker… one of these tiny iphone bluetooth speaker
<jeannicolas>
I love it
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
but yeah, my fronts are very mediocre right now. And I don't have any surround units at all.
<alexgordon>
I have £30 headphones I bought off amazon
<alexgordon>
fucking amazing
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
my fronts are these really obscure, early-90's flat electrostats I got used.
<jeannicolas>
alexgordon: yeah i like my headphones too
<whitequark>
I have $20 headphones I bought in the subway
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
they're great and all … if you're sitting in EXACTLY ONE PLACE, and I put TWO DAYS OF EFFORT into PRECISELY arranging them.
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
electrostats were very very primitive in the 90's.
<whitequark>
ELLIOTTCABLE: you may or may not have severe OCD
<alexgordon>
<+ELLIOTTCABLE>my y-fronts are these really obscure, early-90's flat electrostats I got used.
<jeannicolas>
I know exactly where to place my headphones so they sound good
<jeannicolas>
on my head...
<jeannicolas>
works every time
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
Martin Logan are the only company to make *curved* electrostats; they can project an accurate reproduction over a much larger volume.
<jeannicolas>
sounds like something I need
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
next step after I acquire these is to shape the space: I'm having sound-dampening curtains installed over the stupidly huge window-coverage in this room.
<alexgordon>
whitequark: believe me, entire medical textbooks have been written about elliottcable's state of mind
<jeannicolas>
me and my flat electrostats… LOL I can be such a caveman sometimes
<purr>
LOL
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
idk what I'm going to do about the kitchen area, it's gonna trash my acoustic space :x
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
all those strangly-shaped, hard granite and stainless-steel surfaces D: