Newest at the top
| 2026-05-17 22:11:51 +0000 | machinedgod | (~machinedg@d172-219-48-230.abhsia.telus.net) machinedgod |
| 2026-05-17 22:08:39 +0000 | jreicher | (~joelr@user/jreicher) jreicher |
| 2026-05-17 22:04:20 +0000 | tri | (~tri@ool-4a5ac1f4.dyn.optonline.net) (Ping timeout: 245 seconds) |
| 2026-05-17 22:02:52 +0000 | x9 | (~x9@91-157-105-12.elisa-laajakaista.fi) (Quit: Client closed) |
| 2026-05-17 22:02:10 +0000 | mtmn | (~mtmn@user/mtmn) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2026-05-17 22:00:55 +0000 | Eoco | (~ian@128.101.131.218) (Ping timeout: 244 seconds) |
| 2026-05-17 22:00:52 +0000 | layline_ | layline-away |
| 2026-05-17 21:57:13 +0000 | <Leary> | Fair. Re pure concurrency, there are simple models like KPNs where components may execute in any order but the network as a whole processes a stream deterministically. |
| 2026-05-17 21:56:22 +0000 | tri | (~tri@ool-4a5ac1f4.dyn.optonline.net) |
| 2026-05-17 21:55:15 +0000 | Eoco | (~ian@128.101.131.218) Eoco |
| 2026-05-17 21:54:57 +0000 | Eoco | (~ian@128.101.131.218) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2026-05-17 21:51:54 +0000 | troojg | (~troojg@user/troojg) troojg |
| 2026-05-17 21:51:13 +0000 | __monty__ | (~toonn@user/toonn) (Quit: leaving) |
| 2026-05-17 21:50:44 +0000 | Inline | (~noOne@ipservice-092-208-182-236.092.208.pools.vodafone-ip.de) Inline |
| 2026-05-17 21:49:54 +0000 | Inline | (~noOne@ipservice-092-208-182-236.092.208.pools.vodafone-ip.de) (Max SendQ exceeded) |
| 2026-05-17 21:48:39 +0000 | target_i | (~target_i@user/target-i/x-6023099) (Quit: leaving) |
| 2026-05-17 21:48:24 +0000 | Square | (~Square@user/square) (Ping timeout: 244 seconds) |
| 2026-05-17 21:48:04 +0000 | Inline | (~noOne@ipservice-092-208-182-236.092.208.pools.vodafone-ip.de) Inline |
| 2026-05-17 21:45:32 +0000 | <geekosaur> | consider that we say "prune" with respect to edges or vertices of graphs |
| 2026-05-17 21:44:23 +0000 | <geekosaur> | yeh, I think I'd consider "pare down" and "whittle down" to be equivalent from different sources, but both more informal than "prune" |
| 2026-05-17 21:43:15 +0000 | <tomsmeding> | Leary: nice. I think 'prune' is still more in the programming vernacular for this kind of thing, but that's a very apt word for what I wrote initially |
| 2026-05-17 21:42:59 +0000 | tri | (~tri@ool-4a5ac1f4.dyn.optonline.net) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
| 2026-05-17 21:41:34 +0000 | <Leary> | tomsmeding: Cheers! Also: "pare down". |
| 2026-05-17 21:41:10 +0000 | Eoco | (~ian@128.101.131.218) Eoco |
| 2026-05-17 21:33:58 +0000 | tri | (~tri@ool-4a5ac1f4.dyn.optonline.net) |
| 2026-05-17 21:27:49 +0000 | Eoco | (~ian@128.101.131.218) (Ping timeout: 245 seconds) |
| 2026-05-17 21:23:42 +0000 | Eoco | (~ian@128.101.131.218) Eoco |
| 2026-05-17 21:23:08 +0000 | pavonia | (~user@user/siracusa) siracusa |
| 2026-05-17 21:22:17 +0000 | <EvanR> | you need higher order probability to model the probability model being wrong, then iterate |
| 2026-05-17 21:21:42 +0000 | <tomsmeding> | EvanR: if you have proved beyond a shred of a doubt that the probability is that low, perhaps. In practice, the probability of failure is significantly higher because you probably get probabilities of people or systems doing weird stuff wrong :p |
| 2026-05-17 21:19:04 +0000 | tri | (~tri@ool-4a5ac1f4.dyn.optonline.net) (Ping timeout: 245 seconds) |
| 2026-05-17 21:18:19 +0000 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) |
| 2026-05-17 21:17:51 +0000 | <EvanR> | also in cybernetics there's many systems interacting on a shared timeline, I guess this makes it a vast subset of concurrency and maybe too concrete |
| 2026-05-17 21:16:41 +0000 | <EvanR> | lol |
| 2026-05-17 21:16:39 +0000 | <EvanR> | it's fine |
| 2026-05-17 21:16:31 +0000 | <EvanR> | if the chance is on the order of your computer failing to radioisotopes in the silicon |
| 2026-05-17 21:14:52 +0000 | tri | (~tri@ool-4a5ac1f4.dyn.optonline.net) |
| 2026-05-17 21:13:27 +0000 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2026-05-17 21:12:24 +0000 | takuan | (~takuan@d8D86B9E9.access.telenet.be) (Ping timeout: 245 seconds) |
| 2026-05-17 21:09:29 +0000 | <tomsmeding> | that... sounds risky |
| 2026-05-17 21:06:42 +0000 | gabriel_sevecek | (~gabriel@92-180-228-17.dynamic.orange.sk) gabriel_sevecek |
| 2026-05-17 21:04:40 +0000 | gabriel_1 | (~gabriel@92-180-228-17.dynamic.orange.sk) (Quit: WeeChat 4.9.0) |
| 2026-05-17 21:02:01 +0000 | Eoco | (~ian@128.101.131.218) (Ping timeout: 244 seconds) |
| 2026-05-17 21:01:12 +0000 | <EvanR> | lately I've been applying probability to everything: the size of this integer is exponentially decaying so picking int64 instead of arbitrary precision gives a high chance the program works! |
| 2026-05-17 21:01:06 +0000 | tri | (~tri@ool-4a5ac1f4.dyn.optonline.net) (Ping timeout: 248 seconds) |
| 2026-05-17 21:00:26 +0000 | petrichor | (~jez@user/petrichor) petrichor |
| 2026-05-17 20:59:53 +0000 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 248 seconds) |
| 2026-05-17 20:59:38 +0000 | <EvanR> | answer: probably xD |
| 2026-05-17 20:58:51 +0000 | <EvanR> | yes that's also the "issue" with information theory, is probability appropriate in the first place |
| 2026-05-17 20:58:17 +0000 | <tomsmeding> | the issue with most practical nondeterminism is that it's not probabilistic but instead other components of the system, that are relevant to your model, doing stuff |