Readit NewsWhat's the equivalent lisp?
(printf "x = %6d\ny = %.8E\n" x y)
that's why I already got the double twin prime conjecture ready:
there exists an infinite number of consecutive twin primes. 3 examples: 11,13; 17,19. 101,103;107,109, AND 191,193;197,199... I know of another example near the 800s
there's also the dubious, or trivial, or dunno (gotta generalize this pattern as well) of the first "consecutive" twin prime but they overlap which is 3,5 and 5,7.... which reminds me of how only 2 and 3 are both primes off by one; again, I need to generalize this pattern of "last time ever primes did that"
For the triplet n, n+2, n+4, exactly one of those numbers is divisible by 3. So the only triplet n, n+2, n+4 where all numbers are prime contains 3: 3, 5, 7.
But if you need to guess a number, and you know it's _5_34, having three correct digits don't help you figure it out.
So I made some variants where guessed values do help you figure out the correct answer.
In rationerdle (https://zck.org/numberdle/?variant=rationerdle), you have to guess a rational number x/y, where both x and y are between 1 and 99, inclusive. It displays the rational number you actually guessed, and whether x and y separately are too high or too low.
In factordle (https://zck.org/numberdle/?variant=factordle), the player has to guess the factors of a target number.
In formuladle (https://zck.org/numberdle/?variant=formuladle), there is a graphed straight line, and the player has to guess the mx+b formula that graphs that line.
I would like to make more, but didn't have any other great ideas when I ran out of interest.
The rotating part is a solution to the problem that forcing a continuous sustained explosion inside an engine can be complicated. By letting the explosion constantly happening, expanding, and traveling radially across a thin cylindrical gap, it solves such problems as sustained combus-^H^H^H detonation, fuel supply, etc. It's not the only possible type of an engine based on detonation principle, but so far the most promising. Detonating piston engines for cars, for example, are much less promising.
Engine part is just regular reaction rocket. It shoots the gas out the back. The faster and heavier the gas, the more reaction force it creates.
This isn't the first RDE ever to have been built, fired, or fired in a freefall, but it's finicky and experimental enough that it warrants a news story like this.
This fragment confused me, because it looks like there are three substitutions. There aren't; there's only one. Read it as:
If you substitute fuel burning (which has subsonic propagation, and is used in every conventional engine) with fuel explosion (which has a supersonic wavefront)...
The first and third "with" link a noun (the respective process) with a property (how fast it shoots gas out the back). The second "with" is the substitution.
English is hard! I'm a native speaker, and I had to take a look at a few webpages to understand just this part! And I'm still left with questions, like why subsonic is described as having "propagation", but supersonic is described as having a "wavefront". Is this a distinction with a difference? I don't know.
The thing is, pretty much every modern high level language tends to feel a bit clumsy as a Forth because the emphasis of the execution model is different - under everything with an Algol-like runtime, there's a structured hierarchy of function calls with named parameters describing subprograms. Those are provisions of the compiler that automate a ton of bookkeeping and shape the direction of the code.
It's easier to see what's going on when starting from the metaphor of a line-number BASIC (as on most 8-bit micros) where program execution is still spatial in nature and there usually aren't function calls and sometimes not even structured loops, so GOTO and global temporaries are used heavily instead. That style of coding maps well to assembly, and the Forth interpreter adds just a bit of glue logic over it.
When I try to understand new systems, now, I will look for the SEE word and use that to tear things down word by word. But I still usually don't need to go down to the assembly(although some systems like GForth do print out an assembly listing if asked about their core wordset).
Which brings up another complication -- the threading model. There are multiple, of course. But sometimes I want to figure out, for example, what the `w` variable does. Is it different between indirect threading and subroutine threading? Maybe!
It's also frustrating trying to understand some of the lowest-level information. For example, a few systems have a very fundamental `w` variable -- but what is is used for? You can't search for it. Or just using registers and having to remember that %esi is the program counter (aka instruction pointer).
I keep wanting to make a series of diagrams to really understand Forth's program flow. It makes sense in concept, but when I go to program it, there are a lot of nuances I keep missing.
create table tz_test ( comment varchar, ts timestamp, ts_tz timestamptz );
insert into tz_test (comment, ts, ts_tz) values ( 'in "local"', TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE '2003-04-12 04:05:06 America/New_York', TIMESTAMP WITH TIME zone '2003-04-12 04:05:06 America/New_York'), ( 'flattened to UTC', (TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE '2003-04-12 04:05:06 America/New_York') at time zone 'UTC', TIMESTAMP WITH TIME zone '2003-04-12 04:05:06 America/New_York'), ( 'in "local" no types', TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE '2003-04-12 04:05:06 America/New_York', '2003-04-12 04:05:06 America/New_York'), ( 'flattened to UTC no types', (TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE '2003-04-12 04:05:06 America/New_York') at time zone 'UTC', '2003-04-12 04:05:06 America/New_York');
select comment, ts, ts AT TIME ZONE 'UTC' as ts_utc, ts_tz, ts_tz AT TIME ZONE 'UTC' as ts_tz_utc, case when ts < ts_tz then 'less' when ts>ts_tz then 'greater' else 'equal' end from tz_test;
When you look at your data, what is the time a user's watch said when the data was input? What time zone was the data input as?
Here's some queries:
create table tz_test ( comment varchar, ts_tz timestamptz );
insert into tz_test (comment, ts_tz) values
('midnight US Eastern', timestamp with time zone '2025-05-13 00:00:00-4'),
('4am UTC', timestamp with time zone '2025-05-13 04:00:00+0');
select comment,
ts_tz
from tz_test;
As a manager I take notes throughout the year WITH my staff to capture what they worked on, how they grew, and all that stuff. If there are stumbles along the way we capture those too. It just makes it easier to then show the higher ups how consistently good a person is (or not in some cases). The self eval is less of an exercise in futility of reminding the boss what you did but an opportunity for staff to reflect on their growth.
Every Friday morning, my company has a meeting for the teams to explain what they've worked on that week. Every Thursday afternoon, my manager asks me what I've worked on that week.
So when I do something, I have to explain that I did it at least three times:
1. In Jira. 2. In daily standup. 3. Every Thursday to my manager. 4. Sometimes in Slack, because no one reads Jira comments unless they're pointed to in Slack.