Several events from this Wikipedia list of unruly classical concerts are candidates for my personal list. The Rite of Spring is what prompted me to look up the list, although the crowd’s reaction turns out to have been embellished over the years.
I’d also like to have seen the premiere of Steve Reich’s Music for 18 Musicians; it’s possibly my favorite piece of music. Watching J.S. Bach improvise a fugue on the spot seems worth checking out too, especially since there’s no recording or transcription of what he did on those occasions.
I always say church organs are the original heavy metal. Who needs amplification? Just open up the big pipes! The debut of the Rite of Spring is also an excellent choice.
DOGE is bad because the Government Accountability Office already exists, and “auditing agency operations to determine whether federal funds are being spent efficiently and effectively” is already part of its mandate.
There is no need to create another new program instead of improving what already exists, except that GAO is non-partisan so it won’t cut whatever the new administration says it should, and Musk wouldn’t join it unless he’s at the top.
> Looks like their job is to only make recommendations on spending and nothing more.
The new department will do exactly the same. Congress controls spending, so recommendations are all any executive department can do. If GAO should be able to find more inefficiencies, or should be given the power to cut stuff on its own (it shouldn’t), then the focus ought to be on making them do that. Adding a whole new redundant department seems…inefficient.
This topic is related to the work of Michael Levin’s lab, which I only recently found out about and have been digging into. They’ve released a bunch of papers, and Michael has given plenty of in-depth interviews available on YouTube. They’re looking at low-level structures like cells and asking “what can be learned/achieved by viewing these structures as being intelligent agents?” The problem of memory is tied intricately with intelligence, and examples of it at these low levels are found throughout their work.
The results of their experiments are surprising and intriguing: bringing cancer cells back into proper functioning, “anthrobots” self-assembling from throat tissue cells, malformed tadpoles becoming normal frogs, cells induced to make an eye by recruiting their neighbors…
An excerpt from the link below: Our main model system is morphogenesis: the ability of multicellular bodies to self-assemble, repair, and improvise novel solutions to anatomical goals. We ask questions about the mechanisms required to achieve robust, multiscale, adaptive order in vivo, and about the algorithms sufficient to reproduce this capacity in other substrates. One of our unique specialties is the study of developmental bioelectricity: ways in which all cells connect in somatic electrical networks that store, process, and act on information to control large-scale body structure. Our lab creates and employs tools to read and edit the bioelectric code that guides the proto-cognitive computations of the body, much as neuroscientists are learning to read and write the mental content of the brain.
As a sidenote, Peter Reddien's lab did other studies on planaria (videos are on youtube) and found cells that are supposedly dedicated to map the whole body and indicate how differentiation should go in that area (basically one input to the morphogenesis of this animal). It was, after levin's work, another eye openener, as you kinda approach biology as an information problem... everything happening has a piece of data that explains it, we just didn't look everywhere.
This is an excellent demo. I watched the "DOOM with no game engine" video a while back and was mildly intrigued. It is much more engaging to be the one in control.
They made a great decision by letting me download the video of my journey when the demo ended. I saw some neat constructs and was thinking, "I wish I could show this to some friends." I can!
If you get lost in the dark like I did, just press E to bring up the items menu. Doing that a couple of times and moving around a bit brought some novelty back into view for it to work with.
“What kind of runner can run as fast as they possibly can from the very start of a race? Only someone who runs very short distances. But we’re programmers, we’re smarter than runners. We know how to fix that problem, we just fire the starting pistol every hundred yards, and call it a new sprint!”
The Scrum Master is supposed to be part of the team, constantly helping with the Sprint, whether that's getting clarification for you, or pushing back on unrealistic expectations, or getting more resources, or whatever. Sprint was a bad choice of terms. It shouldn't have been related to races at all. If anything, it should be more like walking. It's about figuring out what pace is sustainable for your particular team, and sticking to that pace. Not driving anyone too hard, but delivering value (i.e. working software features and updates) at regular intervals. If a feature is too big to deliver in a single increment of time (Sprint), then it should be broken down into multiple features that build upon one another to eventually be the whole thing.
Yes, sure, all of that. But also, my boss's boss and my boss's boss's boss are looking at velocity and continually asking for more. They've got dashboards for it. Managers have to answer for why their team's velocity is different from another manager's team. Et cetera.
You can say "don't do that that's not how it works" until you're blue in the face, and it will still happen.
That's the critical failure of Scrum: it's one giant managerial dark pattern that's full of enticements to abuse it. Those enticements are constant. The exhortations to not do it that way are buried in the fine print somewhere, and the only reminders about them are coming from disgruntled individual contributors, probably from lower-performing teams, whose opinion is therefore suspect. The managerial opinion is probably that they should stop whining and make the deadline already.
I keep wishing we could instead have an agile framework that works with human nature instead of fighting against it.
Very cool! I laughed when you realized you had to toss the circle of fifths. I suspected that was coming due to an experience of my own.
In a college Music Theory I course, we had to choose and analyze a piece of orchestral music; the only rule was that it had to be from before 1900. I chose Anitra’s Dance, since I’ve always liked Grieg and knew it well. In short, it took me a fair amount of guesswork, some reading up on Romantic techniques, and a hell of a lot of colored pencils to mark it up. It looked like a Lisa Frank notebook cover.
When I presented my work to the prof, she said two things. First, she was pleased that I’d gone beyond what the course had taught us in order to figure out how to analyze it. Second, that she’s changing her rule and disallowing romantic composers for that exercise from then on.
It was interesting to discover that the piece has so much going on harmonically, because it doesn’t sound like it’s doing anything particularly weird.
> you basically only care about where they are now.
You care about what they are doing now, and what they should do on next render based on the rules of the game and the player’s input. To me, that looks a lot like (state, actions) => newState.
I’m not sure how much of a difference there really is between having objects track their own state vs having them pull their state from somewhere in a single State tree. The advantage to the latter approach IMO is that it simplifies cross-cutting concerns (“player deals bonus damage when all enemies are affected by poison”), and it helps immensely with debugging to be able to query the exact, full game state whenever it’s needed.
My brain has been rewired to find FP easier to reason about than OOP. This won’t be true for everyone, and it isn’t always the right tool. I think it works well for game dev but can be held back by performance concerns.
The other two languages GP mentioned, Elixir and Clojure, run on the BEAM and Java virtual machines respectively. I can’t speak to BEAM/Erlang, but your confidence that the JVM isn’t going away should remove any concerns about Clojure being supported in 20 years. It’s just a Java library, and has the same conservative approach as Java of ensuring backwards compatibility.
Clojure won’t necessarily live as long as the JVM does, in that the language could someday be abandoned, but support for its hypothetical last language version won’t be somehow removed from the JVM.
> support for its hypothetical last language version won’t be somehow removed from the JVM.
Why not? Python2 is a good example - if they make a JVM2 without the cruft and then a transition they will leave behind those that don't transition. Of course that is the worst case and I'll admit unlikely.
(also the JVM isn't very relevant to me because I work in embedded systems without a JVM)
> If you write in something like C++ or Java running on Linux or Windows I'm confident that in 20 years you will find a tool that can build your code for the latest computers
What I wrote was based on your confidence in Java (the language) being around in 20 years. One of Java’s core features is backwards compatibility. Clojure’s implementation will continue to work as long as Java (the language) itself exists. There’s too much business depending on old Java software for the language to break like Python3 did.
Clojure is also a hosted language by design, and has been ported to JS, .NET, and BEAM (though maybe not completely on that one). If JVM2 were to come out, and if it supported garbage collection, it’s likely that porting it will be easy enough for someone to handle the task of transitioning the JVM1 build to JVM2. Implementing a lisp is not a rare hobby, and IMO Clojure’s language design makes it a particularly tasty flavor of lisp.
Thanks for the link! I’m not the parent poster, but I was thinking of using Clara Rules for prototyping a game idea and to get some experience with rule engines. I don’t think that truth maintenance (which is handled by Clara and not O’Doyle) is important for my use case, and O’Doyle looks simpler to pick up.
I’d also like to have seen the premiere of Steve Reich’s Music for 18 Musicians; it’s possibly my favorite piece of music. Watching J.S. Bach improvise a fugue on the spot seems worth checking out too, especially since there’s no recording or transcription of what he did on those occasions.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_classical_music_conc...
reply