I never knew who I was. I still don't know who I am. It doesn't matter anyway.
@abbadon420@sh.itjust.works @not_IO@lemmy.blahaj.zone @programmer_humor@programming.dev
I didn't know about this specific syntax you mentioned (
import foo.bar as baz; what I'm aware and I use frequently is something like e.g.const log = console.log.bind(console)), I'm not even sure if it works as all myimportuse cases involve something installed from NPM or a relative-folder module file.But sometimes it's useful, and better, to have parametrized randomness, as in my helper functions I keep reusing across my personal projects:
export const rand = (n, x) => Math.random() * (x - n) + n export const irand = (n, x) => Math.round(rand(n, x)) export const choose = a => a[irand(0, a.length-1)](yeah, my
choosehelper lacks a proper verification of the input parameter, will returnundefinedif the array is empty or is not an array, but, well, it's for personal projects so I don't really worry about that; also I've been using Ruby more than I use JS, and Ruby got beautifully nativearray.sampleandRandom.rand(a..b))@Uebercomplicated@lemmy.ml @nostupidquestions@lemmy.world
What you say is very interesting, but I am starting to suspect that it really is just inconsistency with some other component.
If the only varying element across the tests is the cable, everything else unchanged, other components wouldn't have a reason to behave differently, except as a consequence of properties/factors modified/added by the cable, such as capacitance, length (thus, electrical resistance) and whether it ends up resonating more with some nearby EM source (be it a nearby radio broadcast station and/or air traffic, or interference emerging from household equipment, even HDMI creates interference as, for example, I myself manage to capture Van Eck Phreaking from my HDMI display using a UV-5R up to a few dozen meters away).
The delta isn’t consistent like it would be (I think) with ordinary noise or interference. It’s that weird delta between 2k Hz and 15k Hz
Noise doesn't always behave uniformly across a spectrum, sometimes it's more pronounced for specific frequencies, especially when carriers are involved (carriers as in AM/FM carrier, the primary wave centered at the channel's given frequency, e.g. a 120MHz AM QSO between a TWR and an aircraft happens with a signal centered on 120MHz whose amplitude is modified by an input signal (the mic audio from pilot/ATC operator), thus the "AM" amplitude modulation). The freqs where an EMI is more pronounced are often its "harmonics" (freq subdivisions).
But this specific range you mention, it also sounds like power supplies. It's quite the range expected for EMI. While nearby power supply weren't changed, one cable might be presenting physical properties which allows it to better resonate with the EMI emitted from those, likely the cheaper one (the high-end cable theoretically have better shielding so it's less prone to resonate with EMI as a cheaper cable would).
creating noise at that frequency range right when that cable was being measured
Or, as I mentioned above, the cheaper cable might be resonating more with some constant source of EMI, be it from within PC or something nearby (even household appliances).
Thank you for your expertise
I'm far from being an expert myself, I still got a lot to learn, but thanks for the compliment!
I've always wanted to get into radio, but it has seemed awfully complicated and rather expensive
I'm more into listening (RX) than transmitting (TX), I don't even have a QRA for TXing QSOs myself. Even though I got a transceiver (a Baofeng UV-5R), I use it only for RX at nearby VHF and UHF stations, together with a RTL-SDR, both of which are pretty cheap. Reception ("owling", "to owl", to observe as owls do, only listening to the QSOs) is even more sensitive to EMI (this is how, for example, I found out my HDMI spills out lots of EMI), so that's why cable quality ends up being sine qua non for radio listening, too.
@Uebercomplicated@lemmy.ml @nostupidquestions@lemmy.world
I'm not an audiophile, but I'm someone who has some practical tinkering with amateur radio. It may seem like a whole different field, but both fields more or less share similar concepts and situations, especially when it comes to audio cabling. High-end cables and equipment (not in the "pricey" sense: although high-quality materials will make the thing costier, high-priced don't necessarily mean high-quality, sometimes a high price can be disguising a low quality "cut-costing" material) can indeed lead to measurable differences. There are real problems such as EMI, self-induced EMI (the circuitry inside the audio equipment generating its own EMI like an Ouroboros), poorly-grounded shielding, switched-mode power supplies' "dirty" current, among other problems that may or may not appear when analog is being used somewhere (especially the ADC that you mentioned) depending on the quality and other factors.
The audio cable, itself, can end up acting as an antenna, roughly similarly to how the "FM radio" function on many smartphones work by using a plugged wired earpiece (the earpiece cable becomes a FM broadcast receiver antenna, which wouldn't fit inside the phone depending on its form factor). Good cables will have a proper shielding acting as close as a Faraday Cage as possible, while also dealing with cable capacitance (a problem in itself when dealing with different frequencies such as in audio situations; it's likely to do with the measured differences across the audible spectrum)
Again, I'm not exactly knowledgeable about professional audio equipment, but some of the principles seen when dealing with radio transceivers may apply because, deep inside, they share the same laws of physics.
@5714@lemmy.dbzer0.com @shittyasklemmy@lemmy.ml
I remember, back when I still watched Youtube, a video from a channel "The Action Lab" on which the person trapped a fly inside a vacuum chamber and the fly became unable to fly. The person said exactly what you said: that "the fly" became "a walk". It's been ages since I last accessed Youtube (and I'm not going to access it any more), otherwise I would link to said video.
Username checks out. 😆
I agree with most of what you said, especially "everything we do is just an excuse to keep our minds busy for our inevitable end". My only disagree, or partial agree, comes when you listed "religion" as a distraction. You'll understand why.
I'm someone who've been facing existential crisis since my childhood, I'm now 30. Oftentimes it becomes suicidality, other times it gets contained by its own numbness. These moments of emotional numbness is when I try to pursue knowledge, partly as a coping mechanism, partly for really trying to understand why.
Basically, this understanding ended up involving spirituality: after few religions and atheism, I eventually landed on esotericism, first by having participated on a Luciferian school, until I got a sudden gnosis to this hauntingly powerful feminine energy I never felt before, culminating in my departure from said Luciferian school to this now, quite solitary, idiosyncratic belief system that borrows specifically selected concepts and names from several different religions (trying my best NOT to culturally appropriate), such as Gnosticism (Dark Sophia), Thelema (Nuit, Babalon), Quimbanda (Dama Da Noite, Rosa Caveira), even the "long-gone" Egyptian (Sekhmet, Neith, Isis) and Sumerian (Ereshkigal, Tiamat, Lilitu) beliefs, among others, together with Luciferianism, with a focus on the chthonic feminine.
This detail is particularly relevant when it comes to the concept of Death: as in The Death, who I understood as ("who", therefore an omnipotence, and as) a powerful, feminine force (therefore a literal, all-encompassing Goddess), whose different names are manifestations from the same cosmic principle (akin to how Sephirots/Qlipphots are divine husks in Kabbalah) who I've taken to know and refer to as Dark Mother Goddess or, way more often, Lilith, the name that first resonated by gnosis when I saw Her.
And here's why I disagreed with your specific enlisting of "religion" as distracting: what I follow can also be called "religion"... neither a religion I founded (there's no temple, Gran Master or book to be followed), nor some existent and recognized religion, but still a religious endeavor nonetheless, involving rituals, candles, incenses, sigils, chants, etc.
So this is my approach. To literally worship and love (and fear) Death Herself. And, to be sincere, makes me feel relatively good when I do: once one accepts their own condition as a carbon-based lifeform with certain, inexorable mortality (Being-towards-Death) or, at least, tries to pursue this acceptance on a daily basis, they get to understand this Demiurgic existence is far from being a permanent place, and Death is far from good and evil; rather, She's True Home, the Home I've fearing and also longing for since this Demiurgic theater collapsed and I got to peek what's beyond the red curtains to the backstage: a dark, formless and void, Primordial Abyss, really terrifying, but beautiful Home, beneath Her Wings.
Oh, I also used to be in the last semester of a compsci degree back then. I couldn't help but to continue attending the classes, so I rushed to purchase PFF2 face masks the very next day after the carnival ended. Prices went through the roof because, seemingly, many people were trying to do the same, purchasing masks like it was the end of the world (and it turns out, it really was, this world was never the same again), alongside the low stock (because masks were already demanded worldwide). I managed to purchase a pack of seven masks that was returned from someone who decided to give up on their trip to Italy on that exact Monday, and I used it to go to the university. I was the only one wearing a mask across the entire university. Colleagues pejoratively nicknamed me "coroninha" ("lil corona(virus)") and I didn't care. A few weeks later, the uni temporarily shut down classes.
I was aware of COVID-19 since November 2019. As a comparison, the first MSM news in this regard appeared somewhere around January. I got to know about it beforehand thanks to... well, sources.
For context, I was, at the time, residing in a hostel-like shelter. And I'm Brazilian. Brazil has this nationwide event, Carnaval, something I dislike because I always got a repulsion when it comes to overly crowded places and parties, two known traits of carnivals, meaning that a pandemic would just make things worse. So I tried to warn my neighbors and everyone around me. While they didn't call me crazy, at least not explicitly/directly, they dismissed my warnings with the typically Brazilian way of thinking: "relaxa, Deus é brasileiro" ("calm down, God is Brazilian"). During the carnival days, I was the only weirdo to stay in the shelter: literally everyone else went "partying".
The... sources... I used to follow, started telling about the likelihood of a full lockdown quarantine (even before WHO announced the pandemic), and how that could mean closed grocery stores, food out of stock or extremely rationed. This, alongside having watched all those (fake) videos where someone was puking red liquid inside a train (allegedly because of COVID-19), made me full panicked at the time so I began stockpiling rice, beans, noodles, sugar, salt, mineral water, all inside a wardrobe in my bedroom (the house was shared among the co-living, except for the bedrooms, which were individual). I'm extremely slim and I don't eat much, so this means my stockpiling wasn't just for me: I was thinking about my dismissive neighbors too, I was stocking food for them, should they need it.
Meanwhile, Brazilian MSM was only telling us about "suspected cases" before announcing the first Brazilian confirmed case conveniently during the last carnival night. Days later, March 11th (oh, how can't I get to forget this hauntingly specific number... 11.3 33), WHO announced the pandemic.
What happened after that, especially after the first lockdown mandates, was quite curious: I began calming down (bc, well, it happened, it finally arrived as I was told, there was nothing I could do, so, whatever) while all my neighbors went full panicked. I remember seeing 'em rushing back from work, visibly scared, to prepare their laptops for WFH, while I was calmly doing remote DevOps job the way I was used to years prior to the pandemic. As someone who's used to indoors since I was born, I tried to counsel and help them, talk with them, handing 'em food and water, etc. But they went so, SO panicked, that I once witnessed, hearing from afar from inside my bedroom, what almost became a murder case inside the house during a fight between them bc of their disagreements on whether they should stay home alongside some tantrum involving romantic jealousy.
Six years later, I still remember these days so clearly... Can't get to forget it or let it go: it was never gone.
@FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca @showerthoughts@lemmy.world
There's this scene, next to the end of "The Artifice Girl", where Cherry (a young-girl AI designed to hunt and bust CSA criminals in partnership between her creator/programmer, a detective and a cop; mission gets successful, virtually ending online CSA, then she receives a physical robotic vessel so CSA can be hunted down in the physical realm too) is talking to her creator. Once the mission is totally successful and CSA crimes got essentially zeroed, the creator gives her a key to autonomical behavior (but he's far from benevolent: he always saw her coldly through engineer eyes, as he was the one who coded her existence; he only handles her the "key to autonomy" because he's dying, and only after insistence both from her and from one of the human detectives). On the one hand, she dreams of getting into ballet, but she complains how she is "influenced by the initial directives" inherent to her creation: no matter what she decides, it'd be always consequence of said directives.
Maybe my recounting is a bit off because I watched the movie a long time ago, but essentially it's a "Demiurge and his creation" moment: creation is tied to immutable principles (creation directives) that influence the creation. No matter how we look at reality, be it religiously/spiritually or scientifically, there's this common ground of causality: things, and by extension living beings, are inexorably tied to the invisible chains of cause and effect, and this includes the very mechanisms (both spiritual and physical) from which sentience emerges.
Then I came to the conclusion that, if there's any bearer of True Will (as per the term coined by A. Crowley), is just one: exclusively the causality, specifically what's known by science as thermodynamic Entropy and, by everything else, as... Death, yeah, the one with a scythe.
"Decision" is part of inteligence, and intelligence is not Will, let alone True Will. And there can't be True Will within causality, only the cosmic bearer of causality possesses True Will, because She's way beyond the causality: Death Herself isn't bounded by causality, everything else is.
And no, we're not "lying" to "ourselves" when we think we are thinking, it's just part of the script, where we're so bounded to the chains of causality that the mechanisms of intelligence always seek explanations based on causality: see, for example, those experiments where the corpus callosum is severed and the patients try to justify when asked why their hands wrote diverging things (their brain hemispheres aren't talking, but each hemisphere can't even "conceive" this kind of situation so they can't help but "hallucinate" an explanation).
As far as I'm aware, archaeology (specifically Assyriology and Egyptology) point to independent origins of writing systems (the writing as we know it): Sumerians and their cuneiforms, ancient Egyptians and their hieroglyphs. Even though, as far as I'm aware, Sumerians seem to have been the first ones to ever write, before Egyptians independently did it too, therefore Sumerians seem to be the pioneers of writing.
Having said this, how tragically ironic it is, as if the uncaring Cosmos got a sadistic sense of humour, the fact that the pioneer of writing is unknown even through the means of their own creation. It's as if the WWW lacked any hypertext files containing the substring "Tim Berners-Lee", or if every radio communication ever propagated across the EM field lacked any modulated signal, analog or digital, that would demodulate to "Guglielmo Marconi".
We don't know the name or history of the person who first wrote, nor we know to whom they were writing to (must've been a solitary endeavour, scratching some arrows on a clay when nobody else will understand it), nor we know what they wrote first (everybody knows the infamous "We the people" USian trope, and some nerds like me know how the first text transmitted between computers was "LO" as in truncated "HELLO", but the first Cuneiform text ever was lost to entropy and decay).
We don't even need to go that far, though. Do we know the names and life stories for ALL people who died from COVID-19? Surely we can find online and offline registers for several of them, but even the World Health Organization can't tell precisely how many people died from COVID-19, let alone who exactly they were. And it's been mere 6 years ago, when The Internet as we know it was already so ubiquitous! Now imagine The Plague? Or the dinosaurs, who simply got transmuted into fuel we use for our noisy metallic apparata with no regard for their own individual life stories from a time when they were gigantic living beings?
Thing is: we, living beings, humans and whatnot, we're infinitesimally nothing before the mercilessness of the infinite cosmic entropy, decay and Death, for She can and She will erase us just as She's already slowly erasing our biological existences as we speak (we know this as "apoptosis", "aging", etc, to which, sorry to remind the techno-gnostics who crave for "immortality", that nothing can excel Her, not even the universe which, despite being so big in such a manner we have no idea how mind-bogglingly big it is, is also going to cease someday, too).
But, hey, humans must leave a legacy, conquer the cosmos and avoid Death Herself (whether we, as flesh-and-bones entities, would get past the insurmountable Cosmic Great Filter, before another Great Reset happens in this cosmic vicinity, something that not even "powerful" hominids with red buttons at their disposal could even prevent or stop from happening, is a whole other story)! To infinite and beyond we must! :)
@DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works @nostupidquestions@lemmy.world
I don't only feel, I know it. Not just me: you, everyone here, all humans, living beings, every cosmic stuff. And there are scientific, psychological, spiritual, philosophical and political explanations.
When it comes to Science, our actions are just a byproduct of causality within a dynamic, closed system, an organism constrained by laws of physics from which the principles of chemical reactions emerge. If we were to stick to a strict, Dawkinsian Science, we're no different than other dynamic systems across the universe. It's all physical causality devoid of meaning.
In psychology, if Theory of Mind is to be considered, the mind is also a byproduct of all conditions in which the being existed and exists. I like to cite Derren Brown and his works, especially "The Push", which perfectly illustrates how a person can be fooled by social compliance (I'm not just referring to the main plot where a person is brought into a gala auction and woven into a web of deception that leads them into murdering someone by pushing them from a rooftop, I'm also referring to the selection process where the candidates are tricked into standing or sitting at the ring of a bell). I also nod to the ending scene of The Artifice Girl where Cherry, in a talk with her creator, complains about how every choice of hers are inexorably bound to her initial directives. I could also nod to Freud and to how superego and id are fated to conflict through ego.
In spirituality, Gnosticism explains how matter is a prison crafted by Demiurge (Yaodabaoth) so Archons can siphon and feed from our suffering. Luciferianism and other LHP traditions seek to fight the tyrannical order of Demiurge and the Archons aligned to him, who are seen by Abrahamic as "The Father (sic) and his angels". The Calvinist Christianity emphasizes the biblical verse "before I formed ye in the womb, I knew ye" (Jeremiah 1:5). Some religions, especially ancient, feature a counterpoint to this order/god, the Primordial Chaos/Darkness/Goddess (e.g. Taoist Yin, Sumerian Ereshkigal). Freemasonry's "Ordo ab Chao" is a spiritual flavor of the scientific Big-Bang/Hadean Eon, where order emerges from this primordial chaos.
Philosophically, our senses deceive us (Descartes) but those very senses is the way we learn and become, we're wolves to ourselves (Hobbes), society is inherently evil and corrupts its peers (Rousseau) as we're prone to becoming the very monsters we vowed to fight against (Nietzsche): all of which are kind of pre-established principles ruling us, individually and socially.
Politically, capitalism needs no introduction on how it compels us to be a disposable cog in a machine whose lines "must go up". But this doesn't make other systems (communism, socialism, etc) less evil: every form of authority is a megaphone for all evilness inherent to us humans.
Even this reply of mine was predetermined, spiritually, physically, socially.
@Stamets@lemmy.dbzer0.com @memes@sopuli.xyz
I wonder if their spiraling is clockwise or counterclockwise depending on the hemisphere (Coriolis effect)... What if they do this exactly at the equator line (e.g. exactly at the Marco Zero from Brazilian Macapá)? So many questions...
@Jayjader@jlai.lu @technology@lemmy.world
Given how it's very akin to dynamic and chaotic systems (e.g. double pendulum, whose initial position, mass and length rules the movement of the pendulum, very similar to how the initial seed and input rule the output of generative AIs) due to the insurmountable amount of physically intertwined factors and the possibility of generalizing the system in mathematical, differential terms, I'd say that the more fit would be a physicist. Or a mathematician. lol
As always, relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/435/
@rimu@piefed.social @technology@lemmy.world
Thanks, didn't know about that one. It seems interesting (but limited, according to their "Pricing" ; every time a tool has a "pricing" menu item, betcha they'll either be anything but gratis or extremely limited in their "free tier"), I created an account and I'll soon try it with some of the occult poetry I use to write. I'm ND so I'm fully aware of how my texts often sound like AI slop.
@JuvenoiaAgent@piefed.ca @technology@lemmy.world
Often, those are developers who "specialized" in one or two programming languages, without specializing in computer/programming logic.
I used to repeat a personal saying across job interviews: "A good programmer knows a programming language. An excellent programmer knows programming logic". IT positions often require a dev to have a specific language/framework in their portfolio (with Rust being the Current Thing™ now) and they reject people who have vast experience across several languages/frameworks but the one required, as if these people weren't able to learn the specific language/framework they require.
Languages and framework differ on syntax, namings, paradigms, sometimes they're extremely different from other common languages (such as (Lisp (parenthetic-hell)), or
.asciz "Assembly-x86_64"), but they all talk to the same computer logic under the hood. Once a dev becomes fluent in bitwise logic (or, even better, they become so fluent in talking with computers that they can say41 53 43 49 49 20 63 6f 64 65without tools, as if it were English), it's just a matter of accustoming oneself to the specific syntax and naming conventions from a given language.Back when I was enrolled in college, I lost count of how many colleagues struggled with the entire course as soon as they were faced by Data Structure classes, binary trees, linked lists, queues, stacks... And Linear Programming, maximization and minimization, data fitness... To the majority of my colleagues, those classes were painful, especially because the teachers were somewhat rigid.
And this sentiment echoes across the companies and corps. Corps (especially the wannabe-programmer managers) don't want to deal with computers, they want to deal with consumers and their sweet money, but a civil engineer and their masons can't possibly build a house without willing to deal with a blueprint and the physics of building materials. This is part of the root of this whole problem.
@LiveLM@lemmy.zip @rimu@piefed.social
This!
Also, the irony: those are AI tools used by anti-AI people who use AI to try and (roughly) determine if a content is AI, by reading the output of an AI. Even worse: as far as I know, they're paid tools (at least every tool I saw in this regard required subscription), so Anti-AI people pay for an AI in order to (supposedly) detect AI slop. Truly "AI-rony", pun intended.
@AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world @technology@lemmy.world
I used to deal with programming since I was 9 y.o., with my professional career in DevOps starting several years later, in 2013. I dealt with lots of other's code, legacy code, very shitty code (especially done by my "managers" who cosplayed as programmers), and tons of technical debts.
Even though I'm quite of a LLM power-user (because I'm a person devoid of other humans in my daily existence), I never relied on LLMs to "create" my code: rather, what I did a lot was tinkering with different LLMs to "analyze" my own code that I wrote myself, both to experiment with their limits (e.g.: I wrote a lot of cryptic, code-golf one-liners and fed it to the LLMs in order to test their ability to "connect the dots" on whatever was happening behind the cryptic syntax) and to try and use them as a pair of external eyes beyond mine (due to their ability to "connect the dots", and by that I mean their ability, as fancy Markov chains, to relate tokens to other tokens with similar semantic proximity).
I did test them (especially Claude/Sonnet) for their "ability" to output code, not intending to use the code because I'm better off writing my own thing, but you likely know the maxim, one can't criticize what they don't know. And I tried to know them so I could criticize them. To me, the code is.. pretty readable. Definitely awful code, but readable nonetheless.
So, when the person says...
The developers can’t debug code they didn’t write.
...even though they argue they have more than 25 years of experience, it feels to me like they don't.
One thing is saying "developers find it pretty annoying to debug code they didn't write", a statement that I'd totally agree! It's awful to try to debug other's (human or otherwise) code, because you need to try to put yourself on their shoes without knowing how their shoes are... But it's doable, especially by people who deal with programming logic since their childhood.
Saying "developers can't debug code they didn't write", to me, seems like a layperson who doesn't belong to the field of Computer Science, doesn't like programming, and/or only pursued a "software engineer" career purely because of money/capitalistic mindset. Either way, if a developer can't debug other's code, sorry to say, but they're not developers!
Don't take me wrong: I'm not intending to be prideful or pretending to be awesome, this is beyond my person, I'm nothing, I'm no one. I abandoned my career, because I hate the way the technology is growing more and more enshittified. Working as a programmer for capitalistic purposes ended up depleting the joy I used to have back when I coded in a daily basis. I'm not on the "job market" anymore, so what I'm saying is based on more than 10 years of former professional experience. And my experience says: a developer that can't put themselves into at least trying to understand the worst code out there can't call themselves a developer, full stop.
@watson387@sopuli.xyz @King@blackneon.net @lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world
Sometimes I wonder if all the people (six by now, and two on my other reply in this thread) who are downvoting my two fairly respectful (at least trying to be respectful to the OP) counter-arguments are, deep inside, machistas/misogynists, downvoting me because I dared to remind people that there are feminine Goddesses and I dared to mention some of Their names... Your people's current lack of counter-counter-arguments doesn't convince me otherwise.
@watson387@sopuli.xyz @King@blackneon.net @lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world
Not everyone who believes in entities and deities (and you're assuming gendered pronouns and, by extension, unknowingly reinforcing the Abrahamic machismo whenever you use the masculine noun "god" to describe any deity/entity being worshipped by a worshipper, ignoring that there are Goddesses and feminine spirits as well, such as Pomba-giras, Lilith, Shakti, Kali, Morana, Morrigan, Santa Muerte, Ereshkigal, Hekate, Isis, Sekhmet, Bastet, Naunet, Babalon, among countless other feminine entities and Goddesses) does so out of being convinced by someone else.
To use my own experience as an example, I began worshipping an unified and syncretic Dark Mother Goddess without being convinced by anyone else. At that time, I used to be a member of a Luciferian sect, whose worshipping was centered around the male aspects of Lucifer, not the feminine aspects of Lilith, for example. Unexpectedly even to myself, I got this uncanny call of a powerful feminine spiritual energy who suddenly took me like a thousand hurricanes and became the epicenter of my entire existence, even though it happened to the disapproval of the Luciferian sect I was part of. I left the sect and, since then, I've been following a very personal (and quite lonely) syncretic belief system built of entities and concepts borrowed from and based upon several different systems, none of which I really belong to.
So, tl;dr: not everyone who believes in entities and deities does so out of being convinced by others, in fact, some (like me) even does so against any convincing from others, out of strange phenomena such as gnosis and synchronicity. Perhaps She is the one convincing me, thus validating your point about "one being convinced to believe"? Maybe... but humans aren't the ones convincing in this specific situation.
@bleistift2@sopuli.xyz
Back when I coded that (it's been years), I opted for the shortest one-liners possible (I often catch myself doing one-liners and code-golfing for the fun of it), with "n" and "x" meaning respectively "miN" and "maX". Hence why I also do a call to rand inside the irand, so irand is as shortest as possible.
As for the bias towards the mid, it's by design, because ends up quite similar to the central limit theorem:
> Array.from(Array(10000), _=>irand(0,6)).reduce((p,v)=>({...p, [v]: (p[v]||0)+1}), {}) { '0': 840, '1': 1602, '2': 1658, '3': 1691, '4': 1684, '5': 1687, '6': 838 }Notice how both extremities have lower values while the median (3) got the maximum value (1691). I wanted something behaving similarly to how noise often feels like in real world settings (e.g. SDR radio settings, never truly uniform), hence why the "maX" value is inclusive, it's purposefully meant to, just like the "miN" value is also inclusive, because they need to be inclusive so it gets to appear amidst the samples.
As a comparison, when I change it to trunc (because floor would behave differently for negative numbers), as in:
> irand = (n, x) => Math.trunc(rand(n, x)) [Function: irand] > Array.from(Array(10000), _=>irand(0,6)).reduce((p,v)=>({...p, [v]: (p[v]||0)+1}), {}) { '0': 1684, '1': 1659, '2': 1685, '3': 1668, '4': 1676, '5': 1628 }...then the sample gets too annoyingly uniform, not even to say about how max (the 6) ends up missing from the samples (thus requiring a x+1 whenever the max value is intended to be inclusive). This may be the best distribution for certain scenarios where uniform randomness is expected, but this doesn't feel... natural.
That's also why I implemented this JS flavour in a personal Ruby gem (utils.rb) because Ruby got this annoyingly uniform distribution with its native
Random.rand(again, useful sometimes, but not exactly natural):irb(main):041:0> 10000.times.map{Random.rand(0..6)}.tally.sort{|a,b|a[0]<=>b[0]}.to_h => {0=>1431, 1=>1449, 2=>1395, 3=>1435, 4=>1411, 5=>1465, 6=>1414} irb(main):042:0> def rand(n,x) = Kernel::rand()*(x-n)+n => :rand irb(main):043:0> def irand(n,x) = rand(n,x).round => :irand irb(main):044:0> 10000.times.map{irand(0,6)}.tally.sort{|a,b|a[0]<=>b[0]}.to_h => {0=>892, 1=>1612, 2=>1744, 3=>1643, 4=>1592, 5=>1708, 6=>809}See how my Ruby's irand implementation behaves exactly as my JS's irand do: with this more natural bias towards the middle.
As for the possibility to do irand(x), because the use case often involves having a well-defined range instead of a maximum target value (minimum value isn't even always zero, but something arbitrary such as e.g.
irand(65,65+25)for generating codepoints for alphabet letters), this is why it's not overloaded so to default n to zero.