I think it's the COVOX 8-bit thing. Not sure what the specs are, but if you can load samples and loops and set them off at specific intervals, you can accomplish a whole lot with almost no burden to the main computer.
Edit: nope. The COVOX was a parallel port DAC. The computer has to send each sample out. I suspect some light compression, pre-rendered audio segments and an interrupt-driven routine to get data from the HDD and send enough samples per second the sound doesn't get distorted.
> and send enough samples per second the sound doesn't get distorted
That's kind of the awesome thing here, this machine isn't even capable of 1MIPs, so it has to pump audio out of the COVOX and read, decode and display the video.
From the pouet page from one of the authors:
"1. This computer has no DMA. We have to read all data "manually" from HDD registers, word by word. As well as switch heads, cylinders and sectors on fly.
2. This computer is very slow, it spends up to 72 CPU cycles to move a number from one memory cell to another. And it runs on 4 MHz only."
I remember making a knock-off and having doubts if something this simple would work. But it did and it was absolutely magnificent. The PC stopped beeping and started making proper sounds. The sunset of the age of tangible computer wonders :)
Well, my guess is it matters for the upvotes the post receives on HN - hence you're seeing a lot of these posts. Leave out "written in X" and you'll be missing out on upvotes from the X community.
Updated the ruleset with regular couriers! Will be a lot different from the earlier matches. I'm guessing humans can win if they find "cheese" plays that the bot has not found during it's practice.
Personally I like to just get the Windows version and load Linux with GRUB as a second boot option. The few times I need to do something on Windows (photo editing, some games) I just reboot.
I end up doing almost the same except that I ditch the Windows install. The hardware selection is much better and, unless you intentionally sabotage yourself, they work every bit as well as laptops that come with factory-supported Linux installs.
I did this once but this won't save you from forced updates keeping your laptop alive (and hot, and at risk of corruption if it happens when you have to fly/drive somewhere and you weren't expecting an update), plus once Windows took issue with the state of the disk I was sharing between it and Linux (NTFS format) and did a chkdsk which deleted most of the files from it. That was the last time I ran any Microsoft code outside of a VM (Or my employer's kit).
I kind of agree with your sentiment but you make it sound a bit like artists don't use their brain, or are outright stupid - which I don't think you meant and I don't think is true.
There's going to be a lot of difference in practice between accumulating a lot of money over the course of decades until you're in a pretty good place in your 50s, and having all of that dumped on you in one fell swoop when you're 19.
Among the things that a SV engineer who manages that has to think about is if they have children, what happens when they die. It's nice to pass some things on to your children, but at the same time, plopping a million dollars in assets down on your kid all at once may not be doing them favors. Best to look at your options. (I'm not going into it here just because it's really more than fits into an HN message, nor should you take the advice from me; I'm aware that there are options.)
Well, it goes both ways. No shortage of tech worker manchildren who despite their financial situation still have no idea how to behave in a way that will encourage people to like them.
If you don't have any results for the query, then return a page saying so. Otherwise you're annoying the user by making them scan through a page of irrelevant text to confirm that it really is all irrelevant. When this happens to me my reaction is "don't just ignore what I said to you", which is as infuriating when a computer does it as when a human does.
Google returns results specifically showing which terms were missing if this were the case for me. This is useful for finding articles with intersections of concepts (assuming I got the terminology/jargon right) and knowing when those probably don't exist, so I like the feature.
This being relatively large chain store, I'm quite certain there should be forum posts or reddit discussions about their return policy. I have no way of proving they exist, seeing as how Google is shit at finding stuff.
"So what's the problem here"? The problem is, the search engine threw away one third of my query terms, and then gave me all chaff. Apparently I should've thrown in some random punctuation to convince it to actually use all of them.
Well, to me it seems plausible that the writer is not telling the whole truth. They noticed food being stolen from the fridge and he purposely put extremely hot spice in the food to harm the perpetrator.
But how do you prove that. And even if you prove it, would it hold in court since the food was stolen?
> They noticed food being stolen from the fridge and he purposely put extremely hot spice in the food for the purpose of getting back at the perpetrator.
Even if that were the case (which I doubt), why is that wrong? On what planet is it OK to defend the actions of the thief?
edit: If he would have poisoned the food and the thief died, would that be ok?
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that if he did purposely contaminate the food in order to get back at the thief, instead of just talking to him about it, the talk with HR seems justified.
It wasn't contaminated, merely spiced; assuming the story about him eating some himself to demonstrate that it was his normal (hot) level of spice. The idiot here is someone eating something that is obviously far too spicy for them - which is not going to be a secret, something obvious from the first bite.
And as someone that also loves super spicy foods to the point that I eat whole peppers raw, anyone that is brave enough to eat my food is welcome to try.
If your body can't take the heat, you shouldn't be eating my food.
This is no different than if a celiac food thief started eating someone elses food that contained gluten. Its not up to the person that brought food to make sure their food never contained things allergic to everyone in the office. The thief should keep their mitts off something they don't know might hurt them.
This person sounds like they had an allegic reaction to capsacin. They also hopefully learnt that stealing food might mean they'll trip up their reaction. And in the end, they learnt that filing complaints with the HR person you're sleeping with might end up with both of you being fired.
Maybe it is "always wrong" given a particularly rigid and simplistic code of ethics, but in American society at least we are very comfortable with the notion of causing deserved harm (whether physical, financial, or merely emotional) to wrongdoers as a deterrent to others.
I hope you do not actaully think that is way things are or the law works because it does not.
In the US the law allows for you to make the case of self defense, it is a defense for violations of the law. I.E. it is always illegal to kill someone, but it is a defense if you kill someone who was trying to kill you..
Things like bobby traps, or poisoning your food against a thief would not be legal under American law. For example I can not setup a series of Automated Gun Turrents in my home to kill anyone that breaks in, but I could (in some states) shoot someone myself if they break in.
In a food theft case as an individual could in fact assault someone possibly even commit battery against someone in order to prevent the from stealing my lunch but I could not say put bobby trap that could cause physical harm to them on the lunch
I certainly understand that it's not legal to turn your house, nor your lunch, into a deathtrap. Nor at any point did I claim that any particular kind of action was legal. I said that Americans generally feel that we're collectively justified in harming certain kinds of people. That's not a claim about legality. That's a claim about how a subset of the population feels.
My use of "we" was merely meant to indicate that our society, through the apparatus of our legislators, has decided that our society is justified in doing harm to certain classes of people and has set up mechanisms for doing this. I was not using "we" in the "me and my immediate peers" sense.
It's not always wrong to cause someone else harm, either legally or ethically. The principle of legal self defense using reasonable force is well established in many legal systems and is considered ethical in many ethical philosophies for example. Where the line of "reasonable" lies is often a subject of debate however.
We won't all agree on ethical system and world views, but a useful thought experiment is whether or not you'd be willing to shoot Hitler at any point in history.
The writer continued to bring equally spice food and consume it. They let someone else taste it to confirm it was exceptionally spicy, then ate it in front of them without issue.
Unless their plan for revenge started years back when they started slowly building up their tolerance and taste for spicy food, I really don't see how that's even close to the most plausible explanation.
Once I had some roommates who would steal my food from the refrigerator. Several years after I moved out a friend recommended making cat food lasagna as revenge as it wouldn't harm the perps, just be somewhat gross. (Note that I don't recommend this. I am just saying that if catching the perps with food is a goal then there are better options.)
What would be the goal of the writer for even sending this to Ask A Manager with false events?
And more importantly: does it matter? If you come down to it, we don't even know if the writer exists at all. It's just an hypothetical event that serves as fodder for discussion.
