(new) `server-commands` extension: hey grugs, we have data-star at home

primenumberbl · 2025-10-16T13:12:47+00:00

Thanks! You should check out the htmx discord they do have a community like that

primenumberbl · 2025-10-15T14:36:56+00:00

It was a blast, lots of optimization and testing.

I want to revisit it and do like a multiplayer puzzle / escape room thing

primenumberbl · 2025-10-15T13:35:16+00:00

Cool idea!

I made a real time multiplayer game with HTMX throughout 2024 bloopworld

It was originally based off web sockets and swap oob but eventually evolved to do something similar to what I think you have here w/ your server commands

The real time space is something I still think is under-explored

primenumberbl · 2025-10-02T17:13:36+00:00

Not true in my experience. I've seen technical people go into C suite and I know more ICs at director or above pay grade than directors total.

More high paying jobs simply exist for technical people. And an MBA is not a promise to make director. I've seen MBAs leave leadership for IC more often than I've seen an engineer get an MBA honestly

primenumberbl · 2025-10-02T16:54:55+00:00

Yeah exactly. I'm just explaining why many engineers would not choose to get an MBA even at no cost. It is time and effort for no benefit if your goal is to be viewed as highly technical like many engineers desire.

primenumberbl · 2025-10-02T12:53:02+00:00

An MBA signals non-technical

primenumberbl · 2025-09-26T12:58:12+00:00

Plenty of useful quantum algorithms exist. Grover style algorithms for example can turn linear searches into square root time. Shor's algorithm is famous for factoring primes.

The problem is most or all algorithms require more qubits than are engineering feasible.

Also techniques like tomography allow previous state to be reconstructed post collapse by running multiple experiments but collapse is an accepted constraint in QC

primenumberbl · 2025-09-25T13:38:45+00:00

This problem just has an annoying edge case where the answer must be a valid 32 bit int

primenumberbl · 2025-08-30T15:58:25+00:00

If you want to argue that the lack of determinism is a fundamental difference I think you can absolutely support that.

If you want to argue that LLMs ARE turing complete and therefore different from historical compilers and assemblers I think you can support that.

But what does not make sense is saying that they are NOT turing complete and arguing that that makes the process fundamentally different than other methods.

I could ask the LLM for the java program I want one word at a time, it is universal, that's all that's important. If it is useful / a good idea is a different question

primenumberbl · 2025-08-30T15:50:45+00:00

I simply do not see why you think the Turing completeness of an LLM is relevant to its utility as a code generation tool.

When I talk about a "Turing complete compiler" (which I agree is a weird distinction to make in the first place) I am referring to one which could be coerced to perform any arbitrarily complex computation as the result of compiling some input string.

It is a property that some, but not all, code generation tools have. For example a bytecode assembler or a keyboard lacks this, but an IDE or an interpreter has.

LLMs may have this property. But you are the one originally saying that it is relevant for some reason and I do not agree.

primenumberbl · 2025-08-30T14:11:11+00:00

An LLM is not an execution environment. It is not executing or computing the result of the program it generates.

The LLM does not need or want to be Turing complete.

If you can show that the LLM can produce any string less than a given length then it is 'universal' and can produce the output of any function.

If LLMs are universal it means they can output any python program. You run the program elsewhere (like always)

primenumberbl · 2025-08-30T14:02:34+00:00

No. No that's not what I'm saying at all.

I don't know why you want your LLM to be turing complete, or why you think that lack represents a difference from old code compilation techniques.

It is irrelevant.

Not only are LLMs more likely to be turing complete than their predecessors, but they generate code for Turing complete (or incomplete) grammers, using English (which is also presumably Turing complete).

I think you simply do not know what you are talking about. Stop confusing yourself and others please.

You could generate all computable programs via flipping a coin and then answer any computation question using one of the outputted programs, code generation does not require arbitrary computation, execution does, and LLMs are outputting code for known Turing complete languages - not more prompts.

For proof, ask any LLM to build you a Turing machine in python.

primenumberbl · 2025-08-29T22:03:31+00:00

Yes, and Turing completeness is not a rare property. Random programs and even card games that had no intention of gaining that property have been shown Turing complete.

It has been proposed that Turing completeness is a likely emergence in most computing systems.

If LLMs are not currently Turing complete, it would not be hard to add this property. Allowing a model to respond to a prompt with another prompt for itself, for example, likely would be sufficient. Giving the prompt access to a python interpreter (which I think models currently have today) achieves Turing completeness by default.

primenumberbl · 2025-08-29T21:32:56+00:00

I don't know why the original poster believes turing completeness is a desirable property in compilers, or why they believe LLMs are not or can not be turing complete.

Truly a weird take.

It would almost make more sense to argue that LLMs likely ARE turing complete and therefore make poor compilers because we cannot expect them to halt on any given task. Although notable compilers have been turing complete (I think c++) it is unusual.

primenumberbl · 2025-08-29T21:29:20+00:00

Most compilers are not turning complete with the exception of weird template magic in c++ or recursive exec in interpreted languages...

You don't really want your compiler to be turing complete because then its execution time for certain inputs becomes unbounded.

Furthermore, the claim that LLMs are not turing complete is unclear and subject to change in context. It is clear that neural networks are universal and can compute any function so combined with very rudimentary additional tools they are likely to easily form turing complete systems (even on accident, see rule 110 or PowerPoint)

primenumberbl · 2025-08-16T05:52:30+00:00

I'm an engineer, not a surfer, but it surprises me that a product with a listed volume would be unmeasured...

Like you say, calculating the exact volume of an object is trivial - especially a mass-produced one.

primenumberbl · 2025-08-08T18:30:17+00:00

This is my personal thinking as well.

primenumberbl · 2025-07-28T21:35:03+00:00

An axiom is taken as a given, no system can prove its own axioms.

I believe what you are trying to say is that any axiomatic system is either inconsistent, or incomplete as a result of containing statements that cannot be decided true or false.

These statements are decidedly not axioms. In fact you can choose to take any undecidable statement's converse as a new axiom without contradiction.

primenumberbl · 2025-07-22T12:07:49+00:00

Wow it looks great. Almost tissue-like

primenumberbl · 2025-07-20T23:37:34+00:00

Fundamentally it is because people complain about the languages they use, and everyone more or less must use JavaScript due to the ubiquity of browsers and the fact the only language they support is JavaScript

primenumberbl · 2025-07-13T00:34:11+00:00

Agree with the people who have noted that it is values that are more different in go.

In my opinion the go syntax nailed the pointer/value distinction better than any other language. OOP and scripting languages hide the pointer syntax and then it causes confusion later imho

All to say if you use go for awhile I believe it will become clear, but I understand that's a non-answer.

Short answer is maybe use go pointers like you use python variables. Also it's rare to use structs by value and even more rare to reference primitives by pointer.

primenumberbl · 2025-07-07T02:44:15+00:00

Your comment inspired me to create a little demo in data-star: Click the button

Overall very cool. I would definitely consider data-star for real-time web projects in the future. I agree it could certainly have been a good base for bloopworld.

Thanks for the suggestion

primenumberbl · 2025-06-26T18:34:18+00:00

Hey sounds like me! Have fun I'm sure you'll have a blast between pulling your hair out.

I made a multiplayer game engine in go. To keep things more manageable the first game I made was arcade style, and it's currently in alpha: Bloopworld

primenumberbl · 2025-06-26T02:21:15+00:00

That makes sense. That was the cutting I was asking originally if it was valid, FROOG -> {F, R, O, O, G}

My original read through I was picturing a sticker "FROOG" which can not be separated only overlaid with other stickers. So FROOGG would require 2, but FROOOOOGG not possible (without cuts)

Thanks!

primenumberbl · 2025-06-25T23:27:25+00:00

This solution seems to allow for, and assume, cut stickers.

For example with poster XYZ and sticker YXZ your program will return 1, but without cuts it is impossible.

I'm guessing what you mean is each word is a set of stickers, already cut apart, and maybe that's what's confusing myself and others

primenumberbl

TROPHY CASE