svat

7 ms·

1.
by svat 18d ago
The third verse you quoted ( https://shreevatsa.net/bhartrhari/web/K157.html ) has a nice translation into English verse by Ryder: A REASON FOR RENUNCIATION Possessions leave us at the end, However
2.
by svat 18d ago
It's even older the page says "Last updated 2017" and the repo goes back to 2011, and in fact see HN discussion from November 2011: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3267187
3.
by svat 18d ago
I couldn't add the Haksar translation as it's still under copyright, but the site has the other two. Plan to add others like M. R. Kale's ( https://github.com/shreevatsa/bhartrhari/issues/11 ) —
4.
by svat 19d ago
Incidentally, it is a matter of some debate whether Bhartṛhari the philosopher and Bhartṛhari the poet are the same person or two (or more, in the case of the anthology of verses). Oral tradition holds them to be the same person, scholars h
5.
by svat 27d ago
As documented in Dr. Strangelove: https://youtu.be/DUAK7t3Lf8s
6.
by svat 28d ago
Wow I had forgotten that I had answered that question on StackOverflow! So at the time my conclusion had been that there was no mistake (interpreting the "repeat" as a loop), but it's arguable… maybe if the person who posted
7.
by svat 1mo ago
I remember encountering NoDictionaries years ago, and love it. Thank you for building it!
8.
by svat 1mo ago
This is a really nice presentation of how some people play the authors' lawn-moving game better than others -- a great analysis of the gameplay. But the majority of comments on this HN thread right now are reacting to the title rather
9.
by svat 1mo ago
This is such a surprising comment! Bradbury's style is very sparse and plain, and much closer to Hemingway's end of the spectrum than to the other. Where would you put, say, Nabokov, Melville, or Lovecraft?
10.
by svat 2mo ago
For OP: I think "Type specimen" should be the default sample text, just to get readers into the right spirit. :) For anyone else reading this: make sure you click on the "controls & metrics" at the bottom to try out
11.
by svat 2mo ago
By your reasoning, multiplying two numbers in binary involves no multiplication at all, because multiplying by 1 and multiplying by 0 are both trivial operations. But obviously multiplying two n-bit binary numbers is not done in O(1) time,
12.
by svat 2mo ago
This is great! Loved the demo and controls (and nice touch to include The Frog Prince as one of the sample texts lol). I think by doing tracking and expansion you're going even further than original Knuth TeX did/does. Maybe for t
13.
by svat 2mo ago
> AI is a bad writer, but […] Let’s say they finally fixed the machine so it was really good, so its default setting was to write exactly like VS Naipaul. The result would be a world in which you’re constantly confronted by cold emails
14.
by svat 2mo ago
No they are not, which is why Wikipedia doesn't rely on them. All information on Wikipedia is supposed to be verifiable via a reliable secondary source (books, newspapers, etc from publishers with a reputation), so anything written by
15.
by svat 3mo ago
I had to read your comment several times, because the quotes seemed to have nothing in common, let alone be "almost verbatim". Then I realized you were probably commenting not about the quotes themselves, but about the formulaic c
16.
by svat 3mo ago
I think it's the latter. I find the introduction (written by Kent Beck) easier to understand than the rest of the article (which he says is AI-written: "genie-generated description of YAGNI"). In particular writing like this
17.
by svat 3mo ago
X, who was Y, was stuck at Z the entire W. (Bruce Edgar), who was (on (102 not out)), was stuck at (the (non-striker's end)) the entire (over). • An “over” consists of six opportunities to hit the ball and score “runs”. (A “run” is the
18.
by svat 3mo ago
To make the chronology clear: • The Wikipedia page from before the reference to Chen's article was added: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chip%27s_Challeng... — it cites two sources for "coded by T
19.
by svat 3mo ago
This is cool, good luck with your project! For this page, you may want to pick as the default examples some longer words (like say "nevertheless") that show both positive (odd number) and negative (even number) patterns. Also for
20.
by svat 3mo ago
I think your second paragraph is the same as “so slowly”, just quantified. And I'd argue that the technical meaning of “almost all” does match the everyday definition: if you told someone that “for sufficiently large N, almost all 2N
21.
by svat 3mo ago
I think by "have 32 bit factors" the GP actually means "has a factorization as a product of two 32-bit numbers", rather than the natural meaning that doesn't work, as you pointed out.
22.
by svat 4mo ago
It's related, but not the same thing. For example, for b=10, the number 70=2x5x7 is b-smooth, but it cannot be written as the product of two numbers less than b. Here are the other b-smooth (counter)examples for b=10: | n | f
23.
by svat 4mo ago
The word “most” is indeed not very surprising if taken to mean >50% (as you do), but the surprising fact (admittedly not relevant for 2^64 in the quoted sentence) is that “most” can be replaced with “almost all” in the technical sense me
24.
by svat 4mo ago
See “The Concept of a Meta-Font”: https://gwern.net/doc/design/typography/1982-knuth.pdf
25.
by svat 4mo ago
> But nearly all print publishers also do what SE does. Do they? To check, I tried to find a recent publication of Agatha Christie, and found the collection “Country Christie: Twelve Devonshire Mysteries” which says “First published by
26.
by svat 4mo ago
Your comment makes it sound as though the mistake was introduced by an inexperienced contributor who did not read the guide, when in fact it was introduced by the founder/editor-in-chief of the project. :) And in case it wasn't cl
27.
by svat 4mo ago
An Applied Mathematician's Apology by Nick Trefethen[1] has a chapter (a couple of pages) titled "Cleve Moler and Matlab". > I first met Cleve Moler when I was a graduate student and he visited Stanford, where his loud
28.
by svat 4mo ago
Hi (looks like I've already starred your repo at some point months/years ago)! The motivation was not to replace art with technology, but to preserve/resurrect an art that was going away, by truly capturing the human understa
29.
by svat 4mo ago
Actually: • He had already published the first editions of Volume 1, 2, 3, and the second edition of Volume 1, by 1973. It was in 1977 when the publishers sent him galley proofs for the second edition of Volume 2, having switched to phototy
30.
by svat 4mo ago
I was hoping to reply to this in detail but as I never got around to it, I'll keep it short: mostly it's about the editorial changes they make to the text, modernizing spelling etc. Many of the changes are unjustified IMO, and oft

More ›