--- /dev/null	Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/paste/paste.3003	Wed Feb 20 03:41:38 2013 +0000
@@ -0,0 +1,162 @@
+2011-06-22.txt:20:31:06: <oerjan> !perl print q doesthiswork?  ;
+2013-02-18.txt:01:52:56: -!- doesthiswork has joined #esoteric.
+2013-02-18.txt:01:53:56: <doesthiswork> bike: which version of sapir-worf/
+2013-02-18.txt:01:54:07: <elliott> `WELCOME doesthiswork
+2013-02-18.txt:01:54:09: <HackEgo> DOESTHISWORK: WELCOME TO THE INTERNATIONAL HUB FOR ESOTERIC PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE DESIGN AND DEPLOYMENT! FOR MORE INFORMATION, CHECK OUT OUR WIKI: HTTP://ESOLANGS.ORG/WIKI/MAIN_PAGE. (FOR THE OTHER KIND OF ESOTERICA, TRY #ESOTERIC ON IRC.DAL.NET.)
+2013-02-18.txt:01:57:09: <Bike> doesthiswork: the dumb version
+2013-02-18.txt:02:10:07: <doesthiswork> does anybody know where i can find the picture? wayback machine didn't have it
+2013-02-18.txt:02:12:38: <doesthiswork> thank you, the gerrafs / long horses were hilarious but I was still curious about the picture.
+2013-02-18.txt:02:14:44: <doesthiswork> it is
+2013-02-18.txt:02:15:44: <doesthiswork> I no longer am, I may have used aspect incorrectly, I was trying to say that I was curious until ion satisfied the curiosity.
+2013-02-18.txt:02:17:33: <doesthiswork> have you people ever heard the linguistic illusion "no head injury is too trivial to be ignored" ?
+2013-02-18.txt:02:19:33: <doesthiswork> what it literally says is exactly the opposite of what everyone agrees it must mean.
+2013-02-18.txt:02:20:43: <doesthiswork> that is the commonly agreed upon meaning
+2013-02-18.txt:02:20:50: <doesthiswork> what it literally says is the the smaller a head injury gets the the harder it gets to ignore. 
+2013-02-18.txt:02:21:10: <doesthiswork> But we can ignore all of them if we try
+2013-02-18.txt:02:23:16: <doesthiswork> The relevance of this linguistic illusion to programming languages is that you can often detect where someone has made a mistake by the presence of tautologies in the code
+2013-02-18.txt:03:00:50: <doesthiswork> that is a logical conclusion to come to
+2013-02-18.txt:03:05:08: <doesthiswork> what eventually convinced you/
+2013-02-18.txt:03:05:34: <Sgeo_> doesthiswork, being told in class. Also the geometric perspective, of a grid of a by b squares
+2013-02-18.txt:03:06:41: <doesthiswork> yes, you just rotate the rectangle and it is isomorphic
+2013-02-18.txt:03:12:48: <doesthiswork> when I was in first grade I built a giant sand sculpture of human reproductive anatomy
+2013-02-18.txt:03:13:03: <doesthiswork> it took me years to figure out why the teacher didn't like it
+2013-02-18.txt:03:13:51: <doesthiswork> I did during recess and got the rest of the class to help
+2013-02-18.txt:03:14:24: <doesthiswork> both combined (because more is better)
+2013-02-18.txt:08:45:15: <doesthiswork> I'm fond of both fexprs and compile time functions
+2013-02-18.txt:08:49:02: <doesthiswork> (some-fexpr-based-macro (eval (+ 1 1)) (+ 2 3))
+2013-02-18.txt:12:01:34: <doesthiswork> did Psogumma ever go beyond a concept? http://catseye.tc/node/Psogumma.html
+2013-02-18.txt:12:05:56: <doesthiswork> I can't think of any big obstacles off the top of my head
+2013-02-18.txt:12:09:45: <doesthiswork> you have a nice parse tree representing a normal bland language, and then whenever you don't know how to translate the next part of psogumma you decide that it must mean one of the valid operations available and use that.
+2013-02-18.txt:12:11:25: <doesthiswork> or really easily it could be a skin for the s k i combinators
+2013-02-18.txt:14:32:07: -!- doesthiswork has quit (Quit: Leaving.).
+2013-02-18.txt:22:09:22: -!- doesthiswork has joined #esoteric.
+2013-02-18.txt:22:37:56: <doesthiswork> how bot infested is this channel? so far I count esomimic lambdabot and hackwhatever
+2013-02-18.txt:22:38:38: <Phantom_Hoover> doesthiswork, cuttlefish, HackEgo, EgoBot, fungot, glogbot, clog, lambdabot, esomimic
+2013-02-18.txt:22:59:11: <doesthiswork> I think that what could have helped prevent that stupid mistake is some nice strong and static typeing
+2013-02-18.txt:23:04:05: <doesthiswork> also if the comment thread was lazily computed there would be no bug visable
+2013-02-18.txt:23:07:13: <doesthiswork> fixed!
+2013-02-18.txt:23:10:18: <doesthiswork> is the same lambda bot as haskell's channel or is it a variation
+2013-02-19.txt:00:23:42: <doesthiswork> I thought that exploiting inefficiency improved efficiency
+2013-02-19.txt:00:25:27: <Bike> doesthiswork: exploiting inefficiency in the sense of finding a niche that doesn't 'need' to exist for the rest of the system to function, and possibly deepening that niche out of self-interest.
+2013-02-19.txt:00:28:31: <doesthiswork> bike: could you give an example niche?
+2013-02-19.txt:01:31:05: <doesthiswork> what if there is a language that gets offended whenever you assume that a function will return because you're infringeing on it's autonomy
+2013-02-19.txt:01:31:39: <doesthiswork> so when you add numbers you need to provide a default value in case they don't add
+2013-02-19.txt:01:32:49: <doesthiswork> and when you use a value from a variable you have to specify what to do if the variable has forgotten
+2013-02-19.txt:01:34:24: <doesthiswork> yes! naturally most of the time every thing will be obliging but if you take things for granted it won't work
+2013-02-19.txt:01:35:30: <doesthiswork> although you can become friends with parts of the program and leave out some of the bet hedgeing
+2013-02-19.txt:01:39:50: <doesthiswork> and sometimes variables won't want to store values for you because they have more interesting things to do, but if spend a little extra computation time thanking various parts of the program when they help you, they will be happier and faster to help you the next time you ask a favor of them
+2013-02-19.txt:01:42:04: <doesthiswork> yes but if you marry more than one there can be jelousy problems
+2013-02-19.txt:01:42:58: <doesthiswork> it would be a truly object oriented language because it would make you treat objets with the proper respect
+2013-02-19.txt:01:44:26: <doesthiswork> and you have to interact with your married variables more than any other
+2013-02-19.txt:01:45:35: <coppro> doesthiswork: that sounds like a DMM languages
+2013-02-19.txt:01:46:06: <doesthiswork> the problem with simula was it wasn't simulationist enough
+2013-02-19.txt:01:47:22: <doesthiswork> coppro: what does DMM stand for?
+2013-02-19.txt:01:51:05: <doesthiswork> I was reading a book about discourse analysis and though that making a language that worked like human relations would be most natural.
+2013-02-19.txt:02:01:51: <doesthiswork> marry a variable is more trouble than it's worth unless you're going to be using that variable pretty exclusively 
+2013-02-19.txt:02:04:32: <doesthiswork> it doesn't enforce monogamy it just has jealousy as a anti scaling factor
+2013-02-19.txt:05:07:14: -!- doesthiswork has quit (Quit: Leaving.).
+2013-02-19.txt:08:45:03: -!- doesthiswork has joined #esoteric.
+2013-02-19.txt:12:52:16: -!- doesthiswork has quit (Quit: Leaving.).
+2013-02-19.txt:18:09:02: -!- doesthiswork has joined #esoteric.
+2013-02-19.txt:18:42:39: <doesthiswork> where's karkat in the slist?
+2013-02-19.txt:18:44:31: <elliott> doesthiswork: so, does it work?
+2013-02-19.txt:18:44:57: <doesthiswork> elliott: does what work?
+2013-02-19.txt:18:46:02: <elliott> doesthiswork: this.
+2013-02-19.txt:18:46:17: <doesthiswork> elliott: no it doesn't
+2013-02-19.txt:18:46:28: <nortti> doesthiswork: what is "this"
+2013-02-19.txt:18:52:01: <doesthiswork> `? olsner
+2013-02-19.txt:18:52:28: <Phantom_Hoover> `run echo "no" > wisdom/doesthiswork
+2013-02-19.txt:18:52:34: <Phantom_Hoover> `? doesthiswork
+2013-02-19.txt:18:52:57: <doesthiswork> `? hackego
+2013-02-19.txt:18:53:22: <doesthiswork> `run echo "no" > wisdom/hackego
+2013-02-19.txt:18:53:42: <doesthiswork> `? hackego
+2013-02-19.txt:19:10:25: <doesthiswork> yeah but modern lisps don't use it
+2013-02-19.txt:19:12:00: <doesthiswork> kmc if I rember correctly you use a [ and then later the ] would close everything in between
+2013-02-19.txt:19:36:10: <doesthiswork> kmc: that sounds like a fun candidate for a genetic screen, to see which genes are more common than in the background population
+2013-02-19.txt:21:35:01: <doesthiswork> freefull: how would you get a loop to cycle 5 times? in all your examples it looked like they stopped after one cycle
+2013-02-19.txt:21:44:44: <FreeFull> doesthiswork: 5 [ 1 - 0 == Loop Dont ? ]
+2013-02-19.txt:21:46:31: <FreeFull> doesthiswork: 5 [ 1 - 0 >= Loop Dont ? ]
+2013-02-19.txt:21:47:11: <doesthiswork> freefull: I see now
+2013-02-19.txt:21:49:12: <doesthiswork> freefull: why have a special "loop/ don't" version of boolians? why not use normal boolians for the loop test?
+2013-02-19.txt:21:50:20: <FreeFull> doesthiswork: Because of what happens when you don't have the right indicator on the stack
+2013-02-19.txt:21:50:53: <doesthiswork> freefull: what happens?
+2013-02-19.txt:21:51:20: <FreeFull> doesthiswork: The loop terminates and everything gets dumped
+2013-02-19.txt:21:53:03: <doesthiswork> freefull: I mean, could you give a nice example where it is nicer to use loop/not loop than 0/not 0?
+2013-02-19.txt:21:55:35: <doesthiswork> that is a good reason
+2013-02-19.txt:22:00:01: <doesthiswork> so what about [ [ 1 - 3 = ] don't loop ? ]
+2013-02-19.txt:22:00:21: <doesthiswork> I meant [ 4 [ 1 - 3 = ] don't loop ? ]
+2013-02-19.txt:22:00:40: <doesthiswork> when we put brackets around "loop" does it's behavior change?
+2013-02-19.txt:22:00:47: <doesthiswork> [ [ 1 - 3 = ] don't [loop] ? ]
+2013-02-19.txt:22:19:14: <doesthiswork> I believe that it is an infinite loop which is why I can't quite make them work like higher order functions.
+2013-02-19.txt:22:19:22: <doesthiswork> it's the one value you can't return
+2013-02-19.txt:22:36:37: <FreeFull> doesthiswork: Is this satisfactory?
+2013-02-19.txt:22:37:39: <doesthiswork> that is satifactory (I've always had a poor imagination)
+2013-02-19.txt:22:39:00: <doesthiswork> so by using [ * dont ] you can surround anything without change
+2013-02-19.txt:22:39:48: <doesthiswork> or if loop looped on boolians [ * 0 ] would do the same
+2013-02-19.txt:23:11:22: <FreeFull> doesthiswork: That is a good argument for getting rid of Loop/Dont actually
+2013-02-19.txt:23:16:44: <doesthiswork> if you hit the end of a loop and the inside is true then, then the loop is reset to exactly how it was before executing?
+2013-02-19.txt:23:34:47: <doesthiswork> hah, and information free language http://pastebin.com/trAf3vbP
+2013-02-19.txt:23:34:55: <doesthiswork> *an not and
+2013-02-19.txt:23:55:46: <doesthiswork> what's the highest complexity class you can get for a language that doesn't create or destroy information?
+2013-02-19.txt:23:56:27: <doesthiswork> I do mean reverseable
+2013-02-19.txt:23:56:54: <doesthiswork> you give it a list of values at the beginning of the program
+2013-02-19.txt:23:57:16: <doesthiswork> and then you get them back rearranged (I think)
+2013-02-19.txt:23:58:01: <doesthiswork> on the wikipedia article they had wires splitting which breaks the no creaton of information rule
+2013-02-19.txt:23:58:01: <Phantom_Hoover> doesthiswork, that's so obviously tc i can't be bothered demonstrating that it is
+2013-02-19.txt:23:58:48: <doesthiswork> it is obviously turing complete if you have a large list of values that you already know (like a free list)
+2013-02-19.txt:23:59:18: <doesthiswork> ...
+2013-02-20.txt:00:00:11: <doesthiswork> reversible is just a side effect
+2013-02-20.txt:00:00:14: <Bike> doesthiswork: the fredkin gate has three outputs.
+2013-02-20.txt:00:00:56: <doesthiswork> yes it does, and if you use each output exactly once it conserves information
+2013-02-20.txt:00:00:58: <ais523> doesthiswork: reversible languages emulating irreversible ones normally do so by having keeping a history of what happened
+2013-02-20.txt:00:02:09: <doesthiswork> I am more interested in the conservation of information and 0-energy than reversing computation 
+2013-02-20.txt:00:02:23: <Phantom_Hoover> doesthiswork, you can't talk about 'conservation of information' without a rigorous quantification of information
+2013-02-20.txt:00:02:32: <doesthiswork> shannon information
+2013-02-20.txt:00:02:56: <doesthiswork> otherwise known as entropy
+2013-02-20.txt:00:04:25: <doesthiswork> phantom_hoover: what is the definition of reversible that the rest of the world uses? 
+2013-02-20.txt:00:05:07: <ais523> doesthiswork: basically that given any program, there's an inverse program that does the opposite
+2013-02-20.txt:00:05:41: <doesthiswork> does sound like the definition of reversable
+2013-02-20.txt:01:55:54: <doesthiswork> lol
+2013-02-20.txt:02:27:22: <doesthiswork> the suffix -ed is a reduced form of "did"
+2013-02-20.txt:02:27:46: <doesthiswork> the suffix -ly used to be like
+2013-02-20.txt:02:52:52: <doesthiswork> you know how physicists like trying to solve the problems of other fields because they figure they can probably do it better than the professionals?
+2013-02-20.txt:02:53:30: <doesthiswork> I've noticed several programers that have the habit of trying to do the same to physics
+2013-02-20.txt:02:53:38: <doesthiswork> it is pretty funny
+2013-02-20.txt:02:53:43: <zzo38> doesthiswork: Maybe in some cases it is possible? Not in all cases!
+2013-02-20.txt:02:54:28: <doesthiswork> lol
+2013-02-20.txt:02:54:54: <doesthiswork> my hobby is redesigning alphabets so i feel free to say that this one is a bad idea
+2013-02-20.txt:02:56:56: <doesthiswork> fər sɛvrl mʌnθs æi roʊt onli ɪn IPA
+2013-02-20.txt:02:58:00: <doesthiswork> exactly!
+2013-02-20.txt:02:58:11: <doesthiswork> and the domane experts love new ideas
+2013-02-20.txt:02:58:24: <doesthiswork> because they love the domain
+2013-02-20.txt:02:58:30: <Bike> doesthiswork: btw you should write in IPA in a non-rhotic accent
+2013-02-20.txt:02:58:51: <doesthiswork> no thanks I don't like those little floaty rs
+2013-02-20.txt:02:59:32: <doesthiswork> kmc : http://www.neverworkintheory.org/
+2013-02-20.txt:03:01:22: <doesthiswork> I have found that by the time I've heard 5 ways of doing something I have developed strong opinions about which way is best, all with out ever doing the thing
+2013-02-20.txt:03:01:59: <Bike> doesthiswork: i think people are pretty good at having strong opinions regardless of what they know, generally speaking.
+2013-02-20.txt:03:03:08: <doesthiswork> kmc: I've seen a graph of how well people thought they did compated to how wel they did do
+2013-02-20.txt:03:03:20: <doesthiswork> there was no inverse nor inflection point
+2013-02-20.txt:03:03:57: <doesthiswork> their estimates just had a much lower variance and a mean of 60th percentile
+2013-02-20.txt:03:05:14: <doesthiswork> although my anecdotal evidence matches up with your statement
+2013-02-20.txt:03:05:58: <doesthiswork> that actually seems counter
+2013-02-20.txt:03:06:25: <doesthiswork> what it said is that people failed to express opinions about things they didn't know
+2013-02-20.txt:03:06:35: <doesthiswork> but made up for it on the trivial things
+2013-02-20.txt:03:08:24: <doesthiswork> have a look at the dunning kruger graph http://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2010/07/07/what-the-dunning-kruger-effect-is-and-isnt/
+2013-02-20.txt:03:08:59: <doesthiswork> it shows that the ranking of abiliy is stable no matter your knowledge level
+2013-02-20.txt:03:09:19: <doesthiswork> it is just the absolute vales that change
+2013-02-20.txt:03:12:08: <doesthiswork> the crossing point depends on the difficulty of the tast
+2013-02-20.txt:03:12:22: <doesthiswork> with harder tasks the crossing point is lower
+2013-02-20.txt:03:13:07: <doesthiswork> (sorry about bringing in the data, but I really like graphs)
+2013-02-20.txt:03:15:27: <kmc> thanks for the link doesthiswork
+2013-02-20.txt:03:16:32: <doesthiswork> it pisses off some of my facebook acquaintances, when I spoil a good story with nitpicking data
+2013-02-20.txt:03:17:27: <kmc> it was probably an attempt to tab complete your name doesthiswork 
+2013-02-20.txt:03:25:47: <doesthiswork> here is an argument for why R is a good esoteric language http://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2012/06/08/r-the-master-troll-of-statistical-languages/
+2013-02-20.txt:03:36:39: <doesthiswork> shachaf: i think monqy doesn't want to respond to your messages
+2013-02-20.txt:03:36:50: <shachaf> doesthiswork: It's possible.
+2013-02-20.txt:03:37:17: <doesthiswork> that can't be right
+2013-02-20.txt:03:37:26: <doesthiswork> if anything you aren't monqying enough
+2013-02-20.txt:03:37:54: <elliott> doesthiswork: ok who are you
+2013-02-20.txt:03:39:34: <elliott> well I guess doesthiswork has to be the kind of person who would use adium to connect to an IRC channel
+2013-02-20.txt:03:40:15: <doesthiswork> elliott: what kind of person would that be?
+2013-02-20.txt:03:41:20: <elliott> doesthiswork: aaaaaaaargh
+2013-02-20.txt:03:41:24: <elliott> `pastelogs doesthiswork