devyn changed the topic of #elliottcable to: 22:53:14 <+whitequark> also there was a fragment about Swiss embassy being located on top of a 1000-ft pole, inside which there was a gigantic arms exhibit
<devyn>
yorickpeterse: hahaha
<devyn>
yorickpeterse: (I promise it's not me)
yorick has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
* alexgordon
looks at it again... to make sure it's as hot as it was 30 seconds ago
<joelteon>
alexgordon: can I write implicit conversions from builtin types to my types
<alexgordon>
yep
<alexgordon>
C++ does that automatically in constructors unless you tell it not to
<joelteon>
what does the signature for const char* -> foo look like
<alexgordon>
make a constructor for foo that accepts const char* or std::string
<joelteon>
oh
<joelteon>
ohhhhhhh
<joelteon>
ok
<alexgordon>
C++gasm
<joelteon>
can I automatically convert T to T*
<joelteon>
that might be a bad idea though
<joelteon>
yeah it probably is
<alexgordon>
sounds like a bad one
<alexgordon>
other way around might be OK
<alexgordon>
joelteon: remember that smart pointers exist
<alexgordon>
and are almost always better than manually deleteing stuff
eligrey has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
<devyn>
o_O
<devyn>
okay, I hadn't seen the new Mac Pro
<devyn>
what the fuck is this
<devyn>
serious sci-fi shit
<devyn>
wow
<alexgordon>
devyn: have you been under a trash can for all these months?
<devyn>
alexgordon: it looks like one ;)
<devyn>
but yes pretty much
<devyn>
lol
<purr>
lol
<devyn>
this is actually very impressive
<alexgordon>
devyn: it's impressive until you realize it's ridiculously overpriced for what it is: a computer
<devyn>
of course it is
<devyn>
the design is still very pretty, if completely static
<devyn>
and efficient
<joelteon>
too bad C++ doesn't have prettyprint
<joelteon>
that's the one thing I really like to have
<alexgordon>
joelteon: yeah, though these things exist
<alexgordon>
devyn: and they could have made one for $2000 with one normal GPU, a normal i5, normal non-ECC ram, etc
<alexgordon>
heck they could have made one for $1250
<alexgordon>
*that* I would have bought
<alexgordon>
not gonna pay $4-10k for a computer, in any universe
<devyn>
I don't know, I see this as a rather clever experiment
<devyn>
no way would I buy it
<devyn>
but it's still very neat
<alexgordon>
yeah but meanwhile apple's top of the range computer *has a fucking screen attached* ...
<whitequark>
alexgordon: ECC RAM is a necessity if you have that much
<alexgordon>
whitequark: define "that much"
<joelteon>
i really want a mac pro
<whitequark>
alexgordon: mac pro has 64g
<alexgordon>
always?
<whitequark>
I think?
<devyn>
no, just up to
<alexgordon>
I only need 16 anyway
<devyn>
the lowest config is 12 GB
<alexgordon>
hell I have 3 on here
<alexgordon>
3 is pushing it
<alexgordon>
8 would probably do
<devyn>
(yes, $3000 for a computer with 12 GB)
<devyn>
>_>
<alexgordon>
16 gives enough room for future proofing
<alexgordon>
64 is just insane, for me a programmer
<devyn>
I have 16 GB of RAM in my machine
<whitequark>
alexgordon: then you don't need a fucking mac pro.
<devyn>
it wasn't expensive at all
<alexgordon>
whitequark: right but I DO need a mac
<whitequark>
devyn: 64G isn't expensive either, especially non-ECC
<alexgordon>
and if it's not a mac pro, then it's got to be an imac
<alexgordon>
that's what I'm complaining about
<alexgordon>
there's no headless imac
<whitequark>
that'll be under $200 I think
<whitequark>
maybe $400
<alexgordon>
only mac mini and mac pro. the former is too constrained, the latter is too expensive
<devyn>
and why the fuck is it 1866 MHz RAM
<whitequark>
then you're fucked
<devyn>
12GB ECC DDR3-1866 (3 x 4GB)
<devyn>
who needs that
<alexgordon>
doesn't DDR4 exist yet?
<devyn>
yes, but it's not A Thing™ you can buy yet
<whitequark>
devyn: do you really bump into memory throughput?
<alexgordon>
wow they've been working on it for 9 years o_O
<alexgordon>
never knew these things had such lead times
<joelteon>
64 would be so goddamn cool
<devyn>
whitequark: no, I don't, so I don't see why 1866 MHz is necessary
<whitequark>
alexgordon: anything mass-produced in general does
<whitequark>
devyn: oh, you're complaining it's too high.
<devyn>
yes
<alexgordon>
whitequark: talking about DDR4, btw
<whitequark>
they seem to have developed it for hardcore multimedia tasks
<whitequark>
editing 4K video
<whitequark>
*that* may well use 64G of 1866MHz memory
<alexgordon>
isn't that like, what avid does?
<whitequark>
there's a reason it's called "pro"
<devyn>
yes, I suppose so actually
<alexgordon>
right but, since the product exists, surely there's no point apple making their own one
<whitequark>
unlike most other products it's not just a marketing gimmick; you'll buy mac pro if:
<alexgordon>
for such a limited market
<whitequark>
1) you actually need that much horsepower
<devyn>
whitequark: though on Macs, a lot of multimedia related stuff is largely GPU-accelerated anyway
<whitequark>
2) you're a fucking hipster who has too much money
<whitequark>
3) there is no third group.
<devyn>
whitequark: there's a reason Apple pushed OpenCL so much
<whitequark>
devyn: now look at its three GPUs
<alexgordon>
whitequark: I know which group ELLIOTTCABLE falls into
<whitequark>
alexgordon: did he buy one?
<devyn>
whitequark: it's a Xeon CPU so two GPUs
<alexgordon>
whitequark: he bought one *years* ago
<alexgordon>
;)
<alexgordon>
whitequark: few years ago, he bought a pretty much top of the line mac pro
<whitequark>
well, can't blame him for that, even if he just wakes up and masturbates while looking at that trashcan
<alexgordon>
I have no doubt he'll be upgrading
<whitequark>
whatever makes you happy, etc
<devyn>
lol
<purr>
lol
<alexgordon>
*joke about elliott's hand*
<devyn>
it does have one hell of a lot of Thunderbolt 2 ports
<whitequark>
hm
<alexgordon>
lol yeah apple's wishful thinking
<whitequark>
now that I look at the specs, they seem smaller
<alexgordon>
"surely if we just add more thunderbolt ports, someone will make some devices. right guys?"
<whitequark>
it's not actually impressive anymore...
<whitequark>
alexgordon: funniest thing is, apple doesn't even follow their own spec
<devyn>
alexgordon: idk, I'm hopeful... TB *is* impressive, and there are non-Apple thunderbolt motherboards you can buy
<alexgordon>
it's impressive like FW800 was impressive
<whitequark>
by that spec, thunderbolt maintenance must be all provided in ACPI
<devyn>
heh
<whitequark>
but it's NOT
<whitequark>
so while linux implements complete thunderbolt spec, it can't use thunderbolt on macs
<alexgordon>
heh
<whitequark>
because they don't fucking follow their own fucking spec
<whitequark>
(it can now, there's been a driver implemented, but still)
<whitequark>
thunderbolt is... idk what is it good for
<whitequark>
it has display and pci-e passthrough. display is, well, cool. everything else? for storage, usb3 is on par, because even with fastest SSDs, the drive is the slow element
<whitequark>
and there's nothing else you can want pci-e passthrough for
eligrey has joined #elliottcable
<whitequark>
ok, I wrote an allocator, hooray
<devyn>
whitequark: PCI-e passthrough could be neat, especially with the new Mac Pro, since you can't add any PCI-e cards to it
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
errr
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
wrong
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
can't stay here and talk
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
but,
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
drive isn't weak link,
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
only if *single*
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
majority of people who care about mac pros or thunderbolt or ANYTHING
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
or hell, a *large* minorit if people who care aobut *macs*,
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
have raids
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
nowadays
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
raid on the desk next to the charger and Thunderbolt screen for your laptop is Standard Practice nowadays, par for the course
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
anybody who can afford a Mac nowadays can also afford a small, user-sized (non-poweruser) RAID
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
and those can *definitely* keep up with Thunderbolt way moreso than USB3, etcetcetc
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
sorry staying out of it, leaving
<ELLIOTTCABLE>
<3 all been a while want to talk soon can we have sex? okay bye
<purr>
Let it be known that ELLIOTTCABLE hearts all been a while want to talk soon can we have sex? okay bye.
<cuttle>
whitequark: the way I understand Benford's Law is that there are a lot of distributions out in nature where things are unbounded, but it's less and less likely as you get higher
<cuttle>
maybe
<cuttle>
whitequark: like, it won't work for IQs, since those are known to follow a normal distribution around 100 (in fact definitionally)
<cuttle>
whitequark: but yeah, my understanding is kind of vague, but I think it always has to be since it's a vague law that applies to a lot of different distributions
<cuttle>
whitequark: but like, imagine you have numbers that are usually in the several-hundreds, but the highest ones stretch into the 1000s
<cuttle>
whitequark: then having 1 as the first digit includes several 100-sized chunks
<cuttle>
whitequark: as well as a chunk below
<whitequark>
hrm
<whitequark>
it supposedly works regardless of units of measurement
<whitequark>
explain that!
<cuttle>
well, units of measurement are simply multiplying by a constant
<cuttle>
if you scale everything in the distribution the same constant amount
<cuttle>
it's still the same shape
<whitequark>
but but, if the most frequent digit was 1 and I multiplied it by two
<whitequark>
wouldn't that mean the new most frequent digit is 2 ?
<cuttle>
no because all of the 5s and 6s and 7s and 8s and 9s of an order of magnitude less also became 1s
<cuttle>
so, 1-9 being equally probable doesn't work
<cuttle>
because it's not scale-invariant
<cuttle>
you want a distribution to be the same regardless of scaling, for it to apply to lots of numbers with lots of units
<cuttle>
so, taking it as an assumption that it's scale-invariant, benford's law is the resulting solution
<cuttle>
it has a great digram in there, where if you take something equally distributed from 1-9, the thing I said where 5-9 become 1 makes 1 *ten times* more likely
<cuttle>
so in a way benford's law is sort of a fixpoint of scaling data sets
<whitequark>
hmmm
<cuttle>
nuck: haven't seen you in forever bb
yorick has joined #elliottcable
Sgeo has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
alexgordon has joined #elliottcable
Determinist has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
Determinist has joined #elliottcable
fwg has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
fwg has joined #elliottcable
alexgordon has quit [Quit: My iMac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
sharkbot has quit [Remote host closed the connection]