00:00:21 -!- ^v has joined. 00:00:34 or maybe i should ask an actual swede. 00:00:50 olsner: why you so idle 00:01:05 FireFly: awake? 00:01:15 oerjan, why did I read "ask" as "smoke"? 00:01:35 * quintopia smokes an actual Taneb 00:01:39 Taneb: maybe you like smoking turnips, i dunno 00:01:40 :O 00:01:48 How do you smoke a Taneb? 00:01:52 That sounds painful 00:01:59 Vorpal: why so _hideously_ idle 00:02:01 ThatOtherPerson, only for me 00:02:06 ThatOtherPerson: by driving faster 00:02:07 Ah, right 00:02:13 Anyway, goodnight 00:02:16 -!- Taneb has quit (Quit: Leaving). 00:02:55 i think i may be out of actual swedes. but in case not, is "Today, among other things, that song is considered somewhat the unofficial hymn of Sweden" about luciasången as preposterous as it sounds? 00:03:19 i could imagine it being true with s/the/an/ 00:04:12 but then the aussies have "waltzing mathilda", so what do i know 00:05:48 * oerjan just edited it instead. 00:06:46 what's wrong with waltzing matilda? 00:07:36 it's just not in the usual style for a national anthem hth 00:08:11 ok 00:10:16 https://www.google.no/search?q=luciat%C3%A5g&biw=1176&bih=613&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=q6GrUuy7OYS47QaX2oAw&sqi=2&ved=0CCoQsAQ hth 00:15:53 what's the clever trick for getting orecchiete not to stack? 00:16:25 I thought stirring a lot while they cooked would do it but it doesn't. Do I need to separate the noodles individually by hand before adding to water? 00:18:11 http://food52.com/hotline/16710-keep-orecchiette-from-sticking-together does this help? 00:20:01 "Today's bug: If a prisoner happens to be on the toilet when his time in jail finishes, he will remain trapped on the toilet forever" game bug logs are great 00:21:36 No, I added them to water that was boiling hard, and I stirred frequently. The problem is that they are already stacked in the bag and the hot water makes them stick that way faster than stirring can break them up. 00:21:54 I think the solution is "buy shell noodles instead because they're just better." 00:25:06 shells are wonderful 00:25:20 I think shells and rigatoni are my favorite 00:26:38 -!- Phantom_Hoover has joined. 00:29:48 Shells cost more per pound at Safeway, though, and TJ's never seems to have them 00:32:11 -!- RJones has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 00:35:06 douglass_: wouldn't it be a good idea to unstack them _before_ dropping them in the water, then. 00:35:34 unless they're frozen or something. 00:35:54 oh you mentioned that option. 00:35:58 -!- tromp has joined. 00:36:33 are we talking killy shells here or what 00:37:00 Phantom_Hoover: term unknown, please rephrase 00:37:11 kill-y 00:37:28 pasta shells hth 00:37:35 o 00:37:37 h 00:37:40 who the fuck freezes pasta 00:37:59 trader joe's has a lot of frozen pasta dishes that are kinda nice 00:38:14 possibly nobody, it was just the main reason i could think of for why you couldn't separate them before boiling 00:42:14 I consider the option of unstacking them individually by hand, rather than stirring them all at once, to take an unreasonable amount of time. 00:44:25 i'm imagining shaking them into a dry bowl and separating them by "stirring" there. might even work. 00:45:06 -!- ThatOtherPerson has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds). 00:45:20 does it help if you pour them in, like, before the water is boiling? 00:46:11 also, does the package have any tips. 00:46:38 -!- ThatOtherPerson has joined. 00:48:01 Hey, can someone help me understand Lazy K? <-- did you get any answer? 00:48:29 @quote lazy.lazy 00:48:29 ShelSilverstein says: Lazy Lazy Lazy Lazy Lazy Lazy Jane. She wants a drink of water so she waits and waits and waits and waits and waits for it to rain. 00:48:35 `seen ThatOtherPerson 00:48:39 2013-12-14 00:02:07: Ah, right 00:48:52 whoa, whoa, whoa 00:48:59 last seen in the future 00:49:38 ok that's less than an hour ago 00:49:46 `date 00:49:46 -!- impomatic has left. 00:49:48 Sat Dec 14 00:49:47 UTC 2013 00:50:07 shachaf: it does the sane UTC thing 00:50:27 oerjan: Not yet 00:50:33 I talked to Taneb about it a little 00:50:43 oerjan: p. sure mountain view time is the only sane time 00:51:19 The thing that bugs me about the wiki page is it only seems to describe how it is different from Unlambda 00:51:23 ThatOtherPerson: right, real fast nora's hair salon III: shear disaster download is isomorphic to lazy k 00:51:40 oerjan: I will try that with the remaining package. There are no tips on the label. 00:52:19 Yeah, I've been looking into Nora, and I thought perhaps it would be easier to learn by learning about Lazy K 00:52:26 ThatOtherPerson: well lazy k is ski calculus, which is like a subset of unlambda, except that it's also lazy in evaluation order. 00:52:28 But... my brain is being stretched 00:52:42 real fast nora 00:52:54 in a sense, the lazy version is the more mathematically pure one. 00:53:08 Yeah, that's about the only part I understand ;D 00:53:09 yeah lazy k wasn't really very rigidly-conceived 00:53:48 i think gould just thought of the language itself as something very obvious and so he only bothers describing the syntax and showing off lazier 00:54:19 the same abstraction elimination process for converting lambda calculus works for both. of course with lazy k you then get _lazy_ lambda calculus. 00:54:57 it _is_ obvious i think. 00:55:07 if you know haskell and lambda calculus :P 00:56:27 of course as someone who has written unlambda, i'm biased. 00:56:40 I understand the general principles, but I don't really know how to program in it yet 00:56:56 do you know how to program unlambda 00:56:57 oerjan: Would you recommend starting in Unlambda first? 00:57:13 not really sure 00:57:23 no, I don't know unlambda yet 00:58:00 what you need is a good understanding of how to do things in lambda calculus, and then how to abstraction eliminate. 00:58:06 -!- _46bit_ has changed nick to _46bit. 00:58:09 -!- _46bit has quit (Changing host). 00:58:10 -!- _46bit has joined. 00:58:34 oerjan: hm, I have a fairly... basic idea of how to do things in Haskell 00:58:40 ThatOtherPerson: you might look at madore's unlambda page, it has many tips for how to program in that, which should at least approximately apply to lazy k. 00:58:48 which obviously translates into a typed lambda calculus 00:59:04 i learnt the lambda calculus perfectly well from the wp article 00:59:06 presumably the point is more about evaluation order than types 00:59:10 just sayin' 00:59:10 Okay, thanks! 01:00:01 ThatOtherPerson: also one thing about laziness is that it's the order of evaluation that is guaranteed to work if _any_ does, so if you write a program that works _strictly_, it will automatically work lazily. although possibly with a space leak :P 01:05:58 ThatOtherPerson: you're definitely going to need to understand how to use higher order functions. 01:06:17 oerjan: Luckily I understand those quite well 01:06:53 good 01:07:36 and then you want to understand how to make data structures with them, e.g. simulating haskell's ADTs 01:08:08 Ah, that sounds interesting 01:08:19 and the matter of flow control, in particular how to do recursion with the self-application trick. 01:08:56 adts you could just do as a tagged union where the union element is a tuple right 01:09:31 Bike: that's not the simplest way 01:09:40 what's the simplest way. 01:09:54 let's say to implement data Bool = False | True 01:10:12 oh, you do that 01:10:41 you implement an element of Bool as a function with _two_ arguments, one to use if it's False, one to use if it's True. 01:10:48 so instead of a tag you just have it only called by case functions 01:10:50 right 01:11:13 and have it pass the data if it exists to that function? 01:11:18 yes 01:11:23 right makes sense 01:11:32 silly me, thinking of data as data 01:12:01 Functions are data! 01:12:10 the future is the past 01:12:22 All bikes are one 01:12:26 False = \x y -> y, True = \x y -> x, and then if b then x else y becomes just b x y 01:12:49 (i sort of switched the order of False and True there to make the if the right order) 01:13:24 now if you instead have data Either a b = Left a | Right b 01:13:57 then Left x = \l r -> l x and Right y = \l r -> r y 01:14:35 and you add more arguments for constructors that have more arguments. 01:15:02 wow, that's pretty cool 01:15:04 a tuple has just one constructor, so (x,y,z) = \f -> f x y z 01:15:28 and that's basically all you need to implement ADTs as functions. 01:19:12 to understand lazy K's IO format, you need (x,y) pairs + one more thing called church numerals. 01:20:25 a church numeral is a natural number encoded as a function applying another function that number of times. i.e. 1 = \f x -> f x, 2 = \f x -> f (f x), 3 = \f x -> f (f (f x)) etc. 01:21:58 imo consider scott encoding rather than church encoding 01:22:17 shachaf: i never remember the difference. 01:22:50 also i only mentioned church for the numerals, which are definitely what lazy k uses. 01:23:47 some but not all arithmetic is fairly easy with church numerals. 01:23:54 (subtraction is a pain.) 01:25:01 just like tail is a pain with church lists 01:25:33 > foldr (\x y -> (ord x,var$show y)) $ "Hello, world!" ++ repeat '\256' 01:25:34 Couldn't match expected type `(GHC.Types.Int, 01:25:35 Debug.SimpleReflect.Expr.Expr)' 01:25:35 with actual type `[GHC.Types.Char]' 01:25:45 hm something not quite right. 01:25:54 > foldr (\x y -> (ord x,var$show y)) undefined $ "Hello, world!" ++ repeat '\256' 01:25:55 (72,(101,(108,(108,(111,(44,(32,(119,(111,(114,(108,(100,(33,(256,(256,(256,... 01:26:21 ThatOtherPerson: that's like the first step for encoding "Hello, world!" into lazy k format. 01:27:16 it doesn't bother to use a proper list with a nil format, just inserts infinitely many 256 after the end. 01:28:07 Cool, thanks! 01:28:33 you're welcome! 01:29:05 (you'll find that particular encoding in my real fast nora implementation too.) 01:29:36 well, approximately, anyway. 01:36:37 imho EOF should just be \Omega 01:39:18 i suppose that could work 01:40:00 although mainly because you can write something that ignores the difference between number >= 256 01:40:08 *+s 01:50:19 wait how could that work 01:50:36 you can't do anything with omega, that was the joke 01:50:42 what's \Omega 01:50:49 infinity? 01:51:04 no, it's (lambda x.x x)(lambda x.x x) 01:51:23 oh 01:51:24 boring 01:56:25 oh that omega 01:56:56 i sort of interpreted it as \f x -> fix f 01:57:08 ie infinity 01:57:31 right 01:58:17 imo (exists x. (x, x -> Maybe x)) 02:03:13 -!- nooodl_ has quit (Quit: Ik ga weg). 02:03:39 -!- ThatOtherPerson has quit (Quit: Leaving). 02:04:07 @tell boily good unpentadactyl morning! <-- my condolences on losing a finger 02:04:07 Consider it noted. 02:11:27 @tell mrhmouse (Control.Arrow.>>>) 02:11:27 Consider it noted. 02:12:30 :t (Control.Category.>>>) 02:12:31 Category cat => cat a b -> cat b c -> cat a c 02:12:55 oh right it got moved and generalized 02:13:06 :t foldr (\x y -> (ord x,var$show y)) undefined $ "Hello, world!" ++ repeat '\256' 02:13:07 (Int, Expr) 02:13:15 ohhhhhhhh trickysauce 02:13:26 i was like "how did you construct an infinite recursive tuple type???" 02:13:26 * oerjan whistles innocently 02:13:39 infinite types are too good 02:13:53 too easy 02:14:08 catab catbc catac 02:14:15 -!- ^v has quit (Quit: http://i.imgur.com/MHuW96t.gif). 02:14:18 > var "a very reasonable name for a variable, don't you think" 02:14:19 a very reasonable name for a variable, don't you think 02:14:20 a cat, a cab, a bat, bacat! 02:14:48 > text "a very reasonable text, don't you think" 02:14:49 a very reasonable text, don't you think 02:17:15 > text "An excellent text." 02:17:16 An excellent text. 02:18:05 > fix (var . text) 02:18:06 Couldn't match type `[GHC.Types.Char]' 02:18:06 with `Debug.SimpleReflect.Expr.Expr' 02:18:06 Expected type: Debug.SimpleReflect.Expr.Expr -> GHC.Base.String 02:18:06 Actual type: GHC.Base.String -> Text.PrettyPrint.HughesPJ.Doc 02:18:56 on second thought, that shouldn't work in any shape or form. 02:22:27 @tell I had a dream that I has a secret esoteric lair <-- good, good, we may make an evil overlord of you yet 02:22:27 Consider it noted. 02:32:41 -!- Phantom_Hoover has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer). 02:33:28 @ask boily normally distributed glazed eyes served over bouchées of surreal bread rolls. <-- are you attempting to create québécois/r'lyehan fusion cuisine 02:33:28 Consider it noted. 02:39:14 is r'lyehan a klingon word 02:42:36 thank you for thinking that as well. 02:43:00 -!- yorick has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 02:44:18 oh its a lovecraftian place 02:44:28 r'lyeh i remember now 02:44:44 the language is like, aklo, or some shit like that. 03:32:33 -!- carado_ has joined. 03:35:00 -!- carado_ has quit (Client Quit). 03:35:11 -!- carado_ has joined. 03:36:07 -!- carado has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds). 03:37:21 -!- carado_ has quit (Client Quit). 03:37:30 -!- carado has joined. 03:44:07 -!- doesthiswork has quit (Quit: Leaving.). 03:45:27 I remember being so confused about over... why didn't anyone tell me that it was modify? (Or, maybe I'm thinking of a different over?) 03:48:12 oh just get over it 04:04:27 -!- carado has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds). 04:13:11 -!- fizzie has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds). 04:14:26 -!- qlkzy has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds). 04:16:22 -!- qlkzy has joined. 04:20:25 -!- fizzie has joined. 04:27:44 -!- Sorella has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 04:38:33 -!- LinearInterpol has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds). 05:22:29 -!- tromp has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 05:23:04 -!- tromp has joined. 05:27:31 -!- tromp has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds). 05:30:24 -!- aloril has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 05:38:15 -!- aloril has joined. 06:25:25 -!- conehead has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.). 06:28:14 aw man, google bought boston dynamics. 06:28:38 all their robots are gonna be all corporate and soulless now 06:28:49 i for one etc. 06:29:15 "Executives at the Internet giant are circumspect about what exactly they plan to do with their robot collection." 06:30:00 oh, they said they don't want to move into military contracting, at least. i guess 06:31:01 military /contracting/ 06:31:14 ? 06:32:28 leaving open the possibility of developing military robots for their own use 06:32:58 oh. heh. yeah. 06:33:20 i should research the legality of spider death robots 06:44:33 Legality irrelevant. It's easier to ask forgiveness than permission 06:45:04 it's also easier to ask things if you haven't been shot 06:45:12 New Amiga 68k port of Doom http://youtu.be/JpjVxuJBWak 07:07:08 -!- CADD has joined. 07:07:31 -!- CADD has changed nick to Guest6653. 07:12:15 -!- oerjan has quit (Quit: leaving). 07:54:38 -!- SBoyo has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds). 08:03:03 -!- Gracenotes has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds). 08:05:16 -!- Guest6653 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds). 08:17:56 -!- Gracenotes has joined. 08:53:28 -!- Slereah_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 08:53:47 -!- Slereah has joined. 09:46:15 -!- Taneb has joined. 09:57:54 -!- Taneb has quit (Quit: Leaving). 10:29:17 "Runtime Error (at 139:148): Access violation at address 7D2DA677 in module 'gdiplus.dll'. Read of address 00212C84." arrrr this wine be broken. 10:35:19 All 'w' and 'm' characters are also very broken-looking. (Other characters are fine.) 10:35:39 Fun 10:43:15 -!- CADD has joined. 10:54:23 "Internal error: Expression error 'Runtime Error (at 16:21): Invalid floating point operation.'" 10:54:28 It just keeps getting better. 11:00:27 -!- carado has joined. 11:13:38 -!- Sorella has joined. 11:14:36 -!- Sorella has quit (Changing host). 11:14:36 -!- Sorella has joined. 11:49:52 -!- carado_ has joined. 11:52:30 -!- carado has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds). 11:57:17 -!- carado_ has quit (Quit: Leaving). 11:57:27 -!- carado has joined. 12:49:09 -!- carado has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds). 13:25:35 -!- qlkzy has quit (Quit: ZNC - http://znc.sourceforge.net). 13:26:10 -!- Slereah has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer). 13:26:16 -!- qlkzy has joined. 13:26:29 -!- Slereah has joined. 13:32:21 ehttps://bitbucket.org/FeministSoftwareFoundation/c-plus-equality 13:32:51 https://bitbucket.org/FeministSoftwareFoundation/c-plus-equality 13:34:46 dafuq? 13:35:17 "1 is inherently phallic and thus misogynistic." 13:35:17 someone should write a compiler 13:35:19 It is true! 13:35:29 Do eet! 13:38:03 "Variables self-declaring as pointers are known as "otherkin". A pointer to an array is an "arraykin"." 13:38:05 :D 13:38:15 Instead of "running" a program, which implies thin privilege and pressure to "work out", programs are "given birth". 13:38:19 hahahaha 13:39:13 I do wonder if you could actually make a language out of it 13:39:20 Or if it is too contradictory 13:39:58 - header files are known as headHer files, with extension .Xir 13:40:53 Slereah: interesting, fizzbuzz states that 1 should be success 13:41:08 Clearly that is misogynistic 13:42:00 lmao 13:42:18 "Curly brackets are not allowed, as they perpetuate our society's stereotype of the 'curly' women. Instead, Python-esque indentation is used." 13:42:27 - assignment constrains its lefthand side to an externally imposed presentation and orientation; replaced by accepts(), and lefthand side is free to refuse (NO MEANS NO!) 13:43:21 There are no bugs, only snowflakes. 13:43:56 "% now known as the 'cock and balls operator'" 13:45:08 I prefer intercal's rabbit operator 13:45:43 which is? 13:46:07 maybe we should make an entry in the esolang wiki 13:46:32 It is the simultaneous use of . and " 13:46:55 Apparently back in punchcard days you could punch two characters as one input 13:50:09 I'm pretty sure you couldn't with a punch-card? 13:50:29 but a line printer could backspace and print a second character on top of an already-printed one 13:51:07 I dunno 13:51:19 I only vaguely remember what the justification of the rabbit was 13:52:22 Also fun fact, the reason the APL charset is as weird as it is, is mainly because most of the characters were composed in a similar manner by typing one character over another one 13:53:07 So vertical bar and delta gives you ⍋, e.g. 13:53:29 Did they even have keyboards back in APL days? 13:53:50 Character sets don't matter much if you program on punchcards I suppose 13:54:34 -!- Slereah has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer). 13:54:52 -!- Slereah has joined. 13:55:37 They did; here's what the IBM 2741 looked like apparently: http://xahlee.info/kbd/i/IBM_2741_printing_terminal_APL_keyboard.jpg 13:57:23 I love the left margin indicator in the middle of the page ... 14:02:33 Oh, by "line printer" I think I meant "teletype" 14:18:29 -!- yorick has joined. 14:20:40 -!- MindlessDrone has joined. 14:31:25 Does english require to use 'a' in enumerations? 14:31:26 like uhm 14:31:31 a dog, a cat, a hound, a house 14:31:41 I have a dog, cat, hound and a house? 14:31:49 or I have a dog, a cat, a hound and a house? 14:36:49 -!- nooodl has joined. 14:43:12 I'd like a GTK-Callgirl, too, hunspell 14:44:17 -!- nortti has changed nick to nortticat. 14:44:44 -!- nortticat has changed nick to nortti. 14:56:36 "i have a dog, cat, hound, and house" sounds acceptable to me 15:00:04 -!- muskrat has joined. 15:00:55 with the a's it definitely works though 15:01:39 -!- tromp has joined. 15:02:01 -!- KingOfKarlsruhe has joined. 15:08:03 -!- prooftechnique has quit. 15:11:43 -!- pikhq has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds). 15:19:21 -!- pikhq has joined. 15:45:53 -!- sebbu has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds). 15:50:16 Wine went from error messages to "sound stutters, whole computer hangs up, reboots after ten seconds or so"; I think I'll give up on it. 15:50:47 Reboots? That's really weird 15:55:04 -!- LinearInterpol has joined. 15:56:08 Perhaps something has configured a software watchdog feature on. 15:56:52 Though /sys/class/watchdog is empty. 15:57:37 Linux has software watchdogs that let you reboot the system? 15:57:42 Yes. 15:57:48 http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/The_Linux_Kernel/Softdog_Driver 15:58:11 But I doubt it's enabled by default much anywhere. 15:59:40 Nothing much in the logs at the time of the reboot, except for a "kernel: [16305.769629] NVRM: Xid (0000:01:00): 61, 0092(1e64) 00000000 00000000" line. But that's a bit earlier, I think, and anyway quite frequent occurrence. (I'll blame the nvidia binary blob anyway, it's an easy target.) 16:00:48 -!- tromp has quit. 16:02:50 if there's a global freeze a software watchdog is useless anyway 16:03:03 SteamOS comes with a LD_PRELOAD hack that prevents programs from changing the screen resolution, and with a compositor that scales fullscreen windows with a smaller size to the screen resolution. The LD_PRELOAD thing may be a bit of a kluge (and perhaps they’ll change that), but i approve. 16:03:39 mroman: It's kind of a best-effort thing. 16:05:31 24 out of 75 items in my Steam library have Linux versions, which is quite a percentage, if still a bit disappointing. 16:06:44 -!- sebbu has joined. 16:07:22 -!- sebbu has quit (Changing host). 16:07:22 -!- sebbu has joined. 16:20:59 -!- muskrat has quit (Quit: Leaving). 16:31:07 -!- tromp has joined. 16:41:21 -!- conehead has joined. 16:44:26 -!- pikhq has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds). 16:46:16 -!- pikhq has joined. 16:53:07 -!- impomatic has joined. 16:56:51 -!- tromp has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 16:57:23 -!- tromp has joined. 17:01:27 -!- yorick has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 17:01:55 -!- tromp has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds). 17:02:03 -!- muskrat has joined. 17:09:12 -!- tromp has joined. 17:15:33 -!- CADD has quit (Quit: Lost terminal). 17:19:15 ion: That's pretty interesting 17:19:27 I wonder what the performance of that is 17:21:45 It's common to use "we" in english papers apparentely? 17:22:04 like "we invented some new method" and "we investigate stuff" 17:22:05 the hell, since when. 17:22:18 "we propose a new method ...." 17:22:28 -!- Bike has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds). 17:23:38 LinearInterpol: So, it's not common? 17:24:02 given no context it's not common. 17:24:11 if you're representing some form of group maybe it's common. 17:24:14 but written by one person? 17:24:15 -!- muskrat has left ("Leaving"). 17:24:19 doubt it. 17:24:37 for example if I cannot deduce who "we" is by just taking into account the context of the sentence.. 17:24:42 it could be anybody. 17:25:11 now if you explicitly specify your context then yes, "we" is acceptable. 17:25:16 http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/200169/now-vldb.pdf <- that has "we" 17:25:42 alright, that makes sense. 17:25:44 http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/200047/cloudEdge.pdf <- also uses we 17:25:51 because you're representing more than one person and I know that. 17:26:14 it's why they made that apparent at the top of the document. 17:26:19 Otherwise you'd use "I"? 17:26:30 yes. 17:26:37 if you must use "I", do it over "we". 17:26:52 because "I" 'points' to the obvious context of the writer unless specified. 17:27:11 I'm asking because in german papers you better not use either "we" or "I" at all 17:27:25 's why I said "if you must use". 17:27:33 usually self reference like that is not acceptable. 17:27:40 in any context. 17:27:49 You'd use passive voice nearly everywhere 17:27:52 yes 17:27:59 "A new method was developed" and stuff like that 17:28:01 because you don't want to attach some sort of centered bias. 17:28:07 to the paper and its content. 17:28:12 but I've heard that passive voice is very uncommon in english anyway 17:28:28 passive voice is common in english speakers with no knowledge on how they use their words. 17:28:28 and some random papers I googled used "we" all over the place 17:28:44 *is not common in english speakers 17:28:54 I have to translate my german abstract to english 17:29:04 that's gonna be hell. 17:29:08 And I'm wondering whether I should use we or just stick to passive voice 17:29:25 are you representing a group, and are talking about something that relates to your situation/accomplishments? 17:29:41 if so, use "we". 17:29:42 We're two guys 17:29:44 so 17:29:46 plural :) 17:29:48 use we. 17:29:54 but only if that second part applies. 17:30:02 ergo you've done something and are talking about it. 17:30:06 Yes. 17:30:11 We have done something. 17:30:12 :) 17:30:15 yeah, "we" is acceptable in this case. hehe. 17:30:30 We designed a RISC CPU essentially 17:30:45 nice! first time? 17:31:08 Yeah. 17:31:14 architecture design is fun as hell. 17:31:26 I remember building my first when I was like 14. 17:31:38 really small 8-bit RISC. 17:32:11 designed to mirror some of the qualities of a certain famous MOS Tech. microprocessor. 17:32:12 i wonder how big an OISC CPU would be 17:32:21 Slereah: very small. 17:32:23 very. small. 17:32:36 I guess maybe a dozen gates or so? 17:32:37 the die itself would probably take up a fraction of the space of most modern dies. 17:32:53 well, it'd certainly be less than modern architectures.. 17:33:04 because you essentially are designing a control unit and ALU around one instruction. 17:33:21 Yeah. But it's nothing serious 17:33:35 it's like building a castle in a sandbox 17:33:35 hey. 17:33:51 everything in this field is serious. 17:34:05 It's common in single-author papers in our field, at least. 17:34:15 Or so I believe, anyway. 17:34:25 you built a RISC architecture. you can now say you have the capability of designing processor architectures now. 17:34:36 that's a pretty big accomplishment. 17:34:47 I meant what *we* did was nothing serious 17:34:52 yes it was. 17:34:54 :) 17:35:13 It's called [[ The author's "we" ]] in Wikipedia's "Atypical uses of /we/" list. 17:35:13 What'd you use to simulate it/prototype it? Verilog? 17:35:37 -!- CADD has joined. 17:35:41 The best papers are HEP papers 17:35:50 When there's a thousand authors per paper 17:35:54 fizzie: yeah, that's if you're taking your reader into the context with you. 17:36:39 I'm pretty sure I've seen also uses that plainly don't include the reader. 17:37:13 haven't seen that in any research papers I've read. 17:38:10 If I hadn't had the capability of designig processor architectures I couldn't possibly have designed one 17:38:17 +already 17:38:34 yeah, but that's the point. 17:38:36 I guess our papers so rarely have a single author. 17:38:49 you said you could do something, and did it! 17:39:00 you leveled up! 17:39:02 :D 17:39:48 your next duty is to make a befunge processor. 17:40:04 you will recieve 10,000,000xp for this task. 17:40:40 "To mitigate this, we analyze the problem and present --" from abstract of Christensen, M.G. (only author), "Accurate Estimation of Low Fundamental Frequencies From Real-Valued Measurements", IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech and Language Processing. 17:40:50 (First single-author paper I could find looking at its recent issues.) 17:40:51 How's that a level up? 17:40:58 I already knew what I was doing 17:41:18 yes, but saying you knew what you were doing and actually demonstrating it are two different things. 17:41:27 so you got an exp bonus. :P 17:41:48 fizzie: that's one of those cases where you bring your reader into the context with you. 17:42:10 The reader is certainly not presenting anything. 17:42:42 it's just like saying "We then can conclude from this observation yadda yadda yadda blah blah blah" 17:42:45 freefull: Probably not different at all. 17:43:15 LinearInterpol: Well, how about "we refer the interested reader to [20]" -- is the reader part of that too? 17:43:44 I suppose not. 17:43:58 that's a bad case of ambiguity: what does "we" really refer to then? 17:44:18 The author of the paper; I don't think it's very ambiguous at all. 17:44:31 that is extremely ambiguous. 17:44:46 because in use of the author's "we", you must refer to both the reader and the author. 17:45:27 so what does "we" refer to? if it refers to the author of the paper it should be "I" 17:45:34 because that's bloody singular, not plural. 17:45:57 I don't think you need to refer to the reader at all. 17:46:03 It's just a singular we. 17:46:05 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We#The_author.27s_.22we.22 17:46:06 LinearInterpol: Yeah, but it's not like I've learned much 17:46:14 I learnt that gtk callbacks are type unsafe as hell 17:46:20 but that's pretty much it 17:46:21 LinearInterpol: Note the word "often". 17:46:43 yet "we" cannot refer to a singular. 17:46:53 "we" is not a singular. "I" is a singular. 17:47:01 that's improper usage if that context is to be interpreted that way. 17:47:44 It can't be improper if it's the accepted practice. 17:47:47 perhaps the author is a member of some organization then. 17:48:09 fizzie: you're stepping onto a very slippery slope. 17:48:30 Well, they ~always are, so if you *want* to interpret them as speaking on behalf of their affiliated organization... 17:48:54 then the context makes sense. 17:49:35 "Some journals prefer using "we" rather than "I" as personal pronoun.[citation needed]" aw, I was hoping for a link. 17:49:45 lol 17:49:54