You are viewing jcreed

Notes from a Medium-Sized Island [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]

[ website | My Website ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

(no subject) [Sep. 30th, 2014|07:38 pm]

Also last night me and K watched "Tiny", a documentary about ~100-200sqft houses that people build or buy. It was a little long on doe-eyed idealism, but god dammit tiny houses I don't care how impractical or patchouli-smelling you are, I want to hug you you are so cute.

The main sticking point for me about the whole narrative with the implied environmental benefits of smaller residences is that most of them (well, mostly the running-through-the-whole movie story of merete and christopher's self-build project) seem to be intended for plopping down in the middle of some gorgeous American West mountainscape... but honestly if you're thinking about reducing the amount of space you take up versus space that Nature gets to keep for Herself, and you also might start thinking about the amount of fossil fuels you burn getting from your space to the space that has your groceries and friends and job, then maybe have you tried this thing we call cities?

I mean, it's not like I'm particularly good at achieving environmental consciousness or living frugally or minimally or whatevs, and I sure don't begrudge wanting to be in the gorgeous American West mountainscape --- it's not really my thing, but my parents grew up in it and are big fans, and that's cool and all --- but I feel like it has to be admitted that driving out all that way parking your tiny house in the middle of it is to some extent an act of consuming (though one might also say: cherishing) that natural beauty, not exclusively an act of preserving or protecting it. Maybe it's still a notch better than parking a giant house there, but it doesn't actually really strike me as very minimalist living such as it is.

I'm being so negative though, jeez. The other side of the story is this really delightful part where it's some people just up and deciding to build things, and looking around on the internet, and thinking "pfff all these other people took 6 months to a couple years or so to build theirs, but I bet I (with exactly 0.000 construction experience) could hack it in 3mo easy" and then of course almost running out of money and taking a year BUT STILL FINISHING. I find that "fuck it I'ma figure this out anyway" really admirable.
Link1 comment|Leave a comment

(no subject) [Sep. 29th, 2014|11:03 pm]

Since I took OS way back when they were teaching it on solaris and not on intel, I never had the fun of going through the (not very essential to understanding how OSes but still cute and fun) part of writing a bootloader in assembly and switching to protected mode and hopping over to real kernel code written in C. A little tutorial popped up on HN today as to how to do exactly that, and it was quick and fun to chug through it. I learned (not from the tutorial but from extra-curricular google-sleuthing when my code didn't work right) about having to add -m32 to my gcc and ld lines to cross-compile 32-bit code on a 64-bit machine, and also -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables to prevent it from creating an .eh_frame section. Anyway I got up to the point of having my "kernel" be a successful write to text-mode video memory via
int _start () {
  char *vid = (char *) 0xb8000;
  vid[0] = 'H';
  vid[1] = 0xf0;

(this draws an inverse-video 'H' at the top-left of the screen!) and then I looked up how you set up high-resolution graphics modes and I started... gibbering just a little bit and recalling what H. P. Lovecraft'd said about inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents.
Link2 comments|Leave a comment

(no subject) [Sep. 29th, 2014|10:23 am]

Hadn't listened to In Rainbows in a while, just listened to it straight through this morning. I listened to it a looooott when it first came out and not infrequently for several years after; wanted to check back in on an old friend and see how it was doing.

"Fifteen Step" and "Reckoner" and "Weird Fishes" are still all great; I think they're the only three that I've heard as singles out in the world. "Weird Fishes" had a lot of rotation at chipotle near the end of grad school. "Bodysnatchers" was on a file that got corrupted or lost or something when I'd first downloaded the album in '07, so it still sounds very foreign to me, not part of how I think of the album. Still a nice song though. Something about the square-wavy timbre of the distortion or the rising melody of the guitar part keeps reminding me unaccountably of Freezepop's "less talk more rokk". "Jigsaw Falling into Place" has the same precise anxiety in the percussion that I love about "Weird Fishes".

"Nude" is where the lyrics are most unmysteriously phrased but somehow still feel like they're hiding something. "Don't get any big ideas / they're not gonna happen", says a voice that is to my ears still more weirdly joyful than dismissive --- as if the phrase is a defiant (but half-believed) quotation of the discouragers by the discouraged, scare quotes flourescently equivocating on and off.
Link4 comments|Leave a comment

(no subject) [Sep. 28th, 2014|10:38 am]
[Tags|, , ]

Thought a little about the 'contingent access problem' that chrisamaphone was interested in since it came up on twitter.

As far as I got was the following paging-back-in of what I remembered of it: (which may be redundant with stuff you already know, chris?)

If we want to have a three-way connective A -[c]o B pronounced "A linearly implies B contingent on positive atom c being in the context right now", then a candidate shibboleth sequent for whether we've done it right is the nonprovability of

a -[c]o 0, c, c -o a |- 0

where a is also a positive atom. The sequent is attainable (by focusing on a -[c]o n) if at the same time we can (1) consume a and (2) non-destructively observe c. But we can only continue observing c if we don't depend on consuming it in the process of using c -o a.

This sequent suffices to tell us that the "consume c and give it back immediately" strategy

A -[c]o B = c -o c * (A -o B)

is no good, since

c -o c * (a -o 0), c, c -o a |- 0

is easily provable. But also we can see even the "consume c and give it back at the next focusing blur" strategy I tried to propose here is not right. For in that case we get something like

a -[c]o 0 = [c](a -o 0)
= c -o {c}(a -o 0)
= c -o ({c}a -o 0 & a -o {c}0)
= c -o ((c -o a) -o 0 & a -o (c * 0))

and it is possible to prove

c -o ((c -o a) -o 0 & a -o (c * 0)), c, c -o a |- 0
(c -o a) -o 0 & a -o (c * 0), c -o a |- 0
(c -o a) -o 0, c -o a |- 0

Except come to think of it I may have done the translation wrong, because a is a positive atom and shouldn't actually be the locus of a "give-c-back" action. Hmmm.


Actually, the left rule I imagine for A -[c]o B is

Δ |- A   Γ, B |- D  c ∈ Δ, Γ
Δ, Γ, A -[c]o |- D

which doesn't preclude

c, c -o a |- a     0 |- 0
a -[c]o 0, c, c -o a |- 0

at all, unless we imagine a focusing discipline where we keep focus on a:
c, c -o a |- [a]     0 |- 0
[a -[c]o 0], c, c -o a |- 0

but then this would mean a failure of completeness of focusing; a sequent that's provable if we don't do focusing, but isn't if we do. This seems to imply that A -[c]o B can't be a negative proposition that allows focusing to flow through to a positive first argument A.
Link1 comment|Leave a comment

(no subject) [Sep. 27th, 2014|10:20 am]
[Tags|, ]

Per K's suggestion we made some migas with eggs, bacon, onion, pepper, tomato, and a bit of avocado. Turned out way tasty. Bought some miscellaneous clothing over at uniqlo since my current jeans are wearing out.
LinkLeave a comment

(no subject) [Sep. 26th, 2014|10:19 am]

Delicious dinner at zaytoon's, followed by sleepily puttering about on internet. Was a long week.
LinkLeave a comment

(no subject) [Sep. 25th, 2014|08:37 pm]

Nice spontaneous unexpected dinner with aleffert. Talked about jobs and life and things.
LinkLeave a comment

(no subject) [Sep. 24th, 2014|08:36 pm]
[Tags|, ]

Still dragging certain pieces of code kicking and screaming into existence at work. Dinner with K at Klong.
LinkLeave a comment

(no subject) [Sep. 23rd, 2014|08:25 pm]

Link5 comments|Leave a comment

(no subject) [Sep. 22nd, 2014|05:52 pm]
[Tags|, ]

Looked at an apartment that turned out be meh.

Had some tasty dinner at Hanco's in Park Slope.
LinkLeave a comment

[ viewing | most recent entries ]
[ go | earlier ]