For sale, music creation, synth 

Before I put it on eBay: Korg wavestate synth for sale, in fantastic condition, with original box and manual. AUD$600 plus delivery.

I absolutely LOVE this Brian Eno quote a friend posted on FB

for those who don't know, Mezzano is a Common Lisp environment on bare metal, taking inspiration from Lisp machines

Show thread

watching qemu-system-x86_64 on a Raspberry Pi page in 133,179 pages of Mezzano


meta, bug 

another Markdown bug: it's lost the ability to italicise half a word. whatever happened when glitch went to 3.5.2 has really done a number on its Markdown support :-(

there's a school of thought - indeed, i'm sure i saw it argued somewhere - that web browsers today are great platforms for Javascript apps, held back only by the continuing requirement to support HTML and CSS

does anyone know how to stop mpv from printing messages like ' (+) Audio --aid=1 (mp3 2ch 44100Hz)' to the console every time it starts a new track in a playlist?

We need more angry Scots women.


It is vital we discuss the F word or we risk facing regret forever.


slower computers, please 

I'm a computer guy, but I'm very much over fast computers. Most of your computer's resources are wasted loading ads and trackers on webpages. Video games require more and more power to deliver less interesting experiences. Don't get me started on cryptocurrency. Computers are getting increasingly complex, therefore less reliable, nearly impossible to repair, wasteful, and devastating to the environment. We need #slowcomputers and more #retrocomputing

oh good lord... redox is painfully slow when i run it on a Pi 400 using qemu (software virtualisation, obviously)

the clearest reading i can get, from Sergio Luvoni's TEST benchmark, is that the performance approximates to a 300MHz Pentium 2 with a disabled FPU (i think qemu might be emulating the x86 FPU in software). so if redox is leaning super hard on the 8087 for its maths, that might account for the dreadful performance - but otherwise, i'd say they still have a lot of optimisation work to do!

When Margaret wants sink water she doesn’t meow or bother me or anything. Instead she does this, which is much more unsettling

actually, i'm going to stop reading that whole damn thread, because there's a whole herd of people who've come thundering in to Be Wrong At Everyone In The Comments

lemme just park this sub here, so i don't get fired on 

UB is the “don’t care’ in Karnaugh diagrams. It makes optimizations possible. Without it you get code bloat.

Comrade, you are wrong on so many levels I fear I cannot enumerate them all.

Firstly, C's undefined behaviour goes quite a long way beyond "don't care" states, into pretty much anything that might vary between implementations. People who know have said that it's practically impossible to write a C program that doesn't stray into undefined behaviour, which reduces C to the level of "toy language".

Secondly, the kind of optimisations permitted by undefined behaviour range from the unwise to the unsafe. I wouldn't be so bold as to claim that no useful optimisation is predicated on undefined behaviour, but I will note that optimising compilers exist, and do rather well indeed, for languages like Haskell, to which undefined behaviour is anathema. Moreover, the range of possible optimisations is rather broader for such languages, precisely because of their a priori restrictiveness.

Thirdly, your throwaway line about code bloat is too ridiculous to even be wrong.

But lastly, and on a more general note, this whole sorry state of affairs appears only to exist at all because of an egregious misreading of the C89 standard that was subsequently set in stone by the C99 standards committee - see for a compelling argument to that effect - and the original intention appears to have been that the C compiler would always generate reasonable code for what was written, but had fairly broad discretion over what that code would be. The only people who benefit from the current situation - where a C compiler's primary job is to seek out instances of undefined behaviour and completely eliminate anything that depends on it, and only to actually generate working, reasonable code as an afterthought - are compiler writers who tout benchmark results as proof of quality... and perhaps Rustaceans, who have a well-deserved bludgeon to beat C with. Nobody else benefits. At all.

So to advocate for it now is arguably to defend the indefensible.

oh. in fact, it's even worse than that. all spaces inside \``` blocks are reduced to single spaces, whereas outside those blocks they are preserved (except at the start of a paragraph, it seems)

this is, needless to say, exactly the opposite of what one might expect.

but at least it means you can
put syntax highlighting inline, i guess

i guess, these are definitions.
so if we start like this,
and carry on here,
i guess this will be dragged back to the
same level as
the previous indent?

Show thread

just trying something...

. this
. is also indented:
. does it strip interstitial spaces?

...yes, it does! that's disastrous! the only way to preserve indentation, then, is... well, exactly the same as stock mastodon:

. this
. . is an indentation
. and this goes back

. like this
. . and this
. . . and also this

Show older

On the internet, everyone knows you're a cat — and that's totally okay.