Hello fellow MM troll level enjoyer. :) perhaps we have mutual friends

I am not in any trust shapes whatsoever, I'm just another person who was overjoyed to see that Geek did a fundraiser :)

Fair. I’m more in the kaizo/twitch community (or was anyhow), but I’ve seen a bit of Geek.

The live demo requires some download of an AI agent platform? I'd really like to try this but not if that's what's required.

The devs should really setup a client-only GitHub Pages for an accessible demo. Judging from skimming the project itself, it's definitely doable without locking into their platform.

As a consumer you can do this with OBD11, along with other small settings tweaks. It’s a nice little device.

It is a bit cursed, but you can do this in C/C++.

https://godbolt.org/z/vPKEdnjan

    union Dang
    {   
        uint64_t : 64; // set total width
        uint8_t foo : 5;
        uint8_t bar : 5;
        struct __attribute__((packed)) {
            uint8_t : 4;
            uint16_t baz : 16;
        };
        struct __attribute__((packed)) {
            uint32_t : 32;
            uint16_t tom : 11;
        };
    };

The member types don't actually matter here so we can have a little fun and macro it without having to resort to templates to get "correct" types.

    #define OFFSET_BITFIELD_DECLARE(NAME, SIZE) \
        union NAME { \
            uint64_t : SIZE

    #define BITFIELD_MEMBER(NAME, SIZE, OFFSET) \
        struct __attribute__((packed)) { \
            uint64_t : OFFSET; \
            uint64_t NAME : SIZE; \
        }

    #define OFFSET_BITFIELD_END() }

    OFFSET_BITFIELD_DECLARE(Dang, 64);
        BITFIELD_MEMBER(foo, 5, 0);
        BITFIELD_MEMBER(bar, 5, 0);
        BITFIELD_MEMBER(baz, 16, 4);
        BITFIELD_MEMBER(tom, 11, 32);
    OFFSET_BITFIELD_END();

Highly recommend not doing this in production code. If nothing else, there's no compiler protection against offset+size being > total size, but one could add it with a static assert! (I've done so in the godbolt link)

Edit: if you're talking about Zig, sorry!

You aren't the only one. For me it was diagnosed as ADHD.

Way too many people treat ADHD as an excuse of not following proper task-management rules. They are so special that no rules could possible apply to them. To all hundreds of millions of them...

This is backwards. In practice, it should be the exact opposite. ADHD people should be MORE vigilant regarding the correct behavior, rules, habits. It is neurotypical people who have some leeway to be lazy with what and how they do stuff, but ADHD have way smaller margin of error!

Sometimes there are things (noise in the room, other distractions, mess in tasks, etc.) that neurotypical can safely ignore, but that will make an ADHD person not able to work at all.

The fact that life is harder to organize and manage for ADHD people only means that they should pay EXTRA attention to doing right things the correct way.

Sure, ADHD people have their own peculiarities (as does any other neurotypical person), but in my experience this is a drop in a bucket of issues that are actually solvable with typical means without reinventing the wheel.

>ADHD people should be MORE vigilant regarding the correct behavior, rules, habits.

Yes, but that doesn't make the ADHD fully go away.

>actually solvable with typical means without reinventing the wheel.

Yes, and they are defined by medical science, not your "think deeper".

>The fact that life is harder to organize and manage for ADHD people only means that they should pay EXTRA attention to doing right things the correct way.

Wow great insight, a bit hillarious with the part of asking adhd people pay extra attention. Should the guy with a neurological problem just pay extra attention to moving his leg, and he will soon run as fast as the rest?

> Yes, but that doesn't make the ADHD fully go away.

Not an argument.

> Wow great insight, a bit hillarious with the part of asking adhd people pay extra attention. Should the guy with a neurological problem just pay extra attention to moving his leg, and he will soon run as fast as the rest?

Yes, if you have problems with inattentiveness, then you can't just eyeball the size of the fabric and cut. You actually need to measure. In worst case, you should measure and remeasure several times, as well as use the pen to draw a straight line with a ruler, instead of just keeping the finger and trusting that you can make the line straight during cutting.

If have no trouble concentrating, you can just work in a cafe or an open office. If you have problems, then take extra steps to get rid of distractions (quiet office, noise cancelling headphones, work-inducing music, etc).

If you have more difficulties getting into the zone, make extra effort organizing yourself: blocking working uninterrupted time on the calendar, disabling notifications, using airplane mode etc.

Have trouble concentrating and the mind wandering? Even more important to keep a proper task/idea/knowledge management system to offload the brain.

This is still not enough to get rid of adhd symptoms for many.

Keeping a knowledge management system is uttainable, I bet many with adhd have tried them all (and constantly try new ones instead of doing work)

you can only block so much. Some people suffer so much that days can get lost by doing virtuelly nothing. Its not like its so easy to sit around being unable to work, and still not check the web or whatever. Also even though you block, many people experience that they get contacted regardless, and loose the flow.

What you propose are great ideas for someone having a hard time concentrating, but that is something completely else from those suffering under a diagnosis.

> This is still not enough to get rid of adhd symptoms for many.

Once again, this isn't the point. And I also didn't suggest it.

A normal adhd should be considered as a personal quirk, not an unescapable death sentence, like many seem to do.

> Its not like its so easy to sit around being unable to work, and still not check the web or whatever

Being still without distractions is hard for most people. Adhd people may have it harder, but fundamentally they don't differ from others.

That's the whole point of slowing down, concentrating on relaxing, not running away from the anxiety and to understand what your mind and body tell you.

> Some people suffer so much that days can get lost by doing virtuelly nothing.

"Virtually" - exactly my point. Most people have not been doing the actual nothing. If they were, they would actually see how much energy and motivation this type of rest gives.

I keep being told this stuff by normies who couldn't do my job.

ADHD doesn't manifest the same way for everyone.

> pay EXTRA attention to doing right things the correct way

I do wrong things a different way all the time. I'm a maverick. I'm known to have creative solutions other people can't find. Not little ones either, 'we have been trying this for 20 years' ones. $multi-million strategic ones. I can't do the boring task list work you normies can do, but I have super powers you don't.

The breakthrough started and my recovery began when I stopped listening to people like you and focused on what I am good at.

But last night, I wanted to get to bed at 10pm, but I got some music stuck in my head. I had some music on to chill out, but something gripped me and I picked up my guitar. It felt like a moment of time but I look up and it is 1am. If I had gone to bed I would have lain awake all night. Meditation would have had this music dominating it and dragging me out of it. I'm in bed late on Saturday morning typing this, which will upset my whole weekend, but I wouldn't have slept, which would have been worse. So, I just went with it.

I envy people who can keep a routine, but I now pity people who don't have extraordinary moments of inspiration. I embrace my super powers and accept my life won't be normal. It will be exceptional.

The assumption that there is one set of rules for "correct behavior, rules, habits" that somehow applies equally to all brains is so spectacularly ignorant it's staggering.

I can obtain the same results as almost anybody at the vast majority of things. But if I am required to follow the same process, I simply cannot. I can't tell you how destructive the well-meaning people were who tried to tie me down to the way that works for their brain rather than saying, "OK, fine. Don't do it my way. Do it your way. Just get it done."

It's like saying to someone with dyslexia, "You just have to be MORE vigilant regarding looking at the letters, putting them together, and saying the words! There's no excuse for not following proper reading rules!"

It's just asinine. It's wonderful that you have figured out a set of "proper task-management rules" that work for your brain. I'm even happier for you if it was easier for you. That sounds nice.

But why on EARTH would the billions of living brains on this planet all function like yours? Does anything else in all those billions of bodies function exactly like yours? Of course not. And it would be ridiculous to expect them to.

> But why on EARTH would the billions of living brains on this planet all function like yours? Does anything else in all those billions of bodies function exactly like yours?

Yes, literally everything in our bodies function exactly the wayvit function in other people. Never heard of anyone's heart working like another person's kidney.

If the organ is not working properly, it is considered a problem and stuff is done to fix it. The stuff that is from the same list as for any other person with a similar problem. Never heard of knee problems being fixed with dyalisis.

It's impossible to me that you're dumb enough to be saying these things in good faith, so maybe I'm guilty of the same assumption, that anyone who can form sentences must have a brain at least as much like mine that they can connect two thoughts.

Nobody's talking about a heart functioning like a kidney. We're talking about the range of functions among people's hearts, or people's kidneys, or people's brains.

You're acting like everyone's heart is the exact same shape and has the same blood pressure and the same resting heart rate and the same outflow volumes, which is just stupid. There is a HUGE range of function among hearts. There is a HUGE range of "healthy enough to work" among hearts.

JUST LIKE THERE IS WITH BRAINS.

There's also a huge range of "not healthy enough to function under normal circumstances, but not bad enough to kill the person."

I don't believe anybody with the brainpower to create an email address, register for an HN account, and sign into it is actually somehow as ignorant of basic human biology as this, so stop trolling and go away.

How would that work for single player games?

Nice - that will fit on a Gameboy cartridge, though bank switching might make it super terrible to run. Each bank is only 16k. You can have a bunch of them, but you can only access one bank at a time (well, technically two - bank 0 is IIRC always accessible).

Each layer of the LM is also at most 16 KiB, so if you want to minimize bank switching, I think making sure each layer is in one bank would be enough? Bank switching shouldn't give much overhead anyway unless it complicates an inner loop, which would be avoided if no layers are split across banks.

I've seen terrible, terrible binary sizes with Eigen + debug symbols, due to how Eigen lazy evaluation works (I think). Every math expression ends up as a new template instantiation.

Eigen is one of the worst libraries when it comes to both exe size and compile times. <shudder>

In terms of compile times, boost geometry is somehow worse. You're encouraged to import boost/geometry.hpp, which includes every module, which stalls compile times by several seconds just to parse all the templates. It's not terrible if you include just the headers you need, but that's not the "default" that most people use.

boost is on my “do not ever use ever oh my god what are you doing stop it” list. It’s so bad.

Same.

I wonder if something like '-gsplit-dwarf' would help - if the version of gcc they are using even supports it.

Clock sync is such a nightmare in robotics. Most OSes happily will skew/jump to get the time correct. Time jumps (especially backwards) will crash most robotics stacks. You might decide to ensure that you have synced time before starting the stack. Great, now your timestamps are mostly accurate, except what happens when you've used GPS as your time source, and you start indoors? Robot hangs forever.

Hot take: I've seen this and enough other badly configured time sync settings that I want to ban system time from robotics systems - time from startup only! If you want to know what the real world time was for a piece of data after, write what your epoch is once you have a time sync, and add epoch+start time.

If your requirements are “must have accurate time, must start with an inaccurate time, must not step time during operation, no atomic clocks, must not require a network connection, or a WWVB signal, must work without a GPS signal” then yes, you need to relax your requirements.

But it doesn’t have to be the first requirement you relax.

If it has a GPS already, it’s really easy to fall into the trap of just using it, but point taken. Then main requirement is accurate moment to moment time. Using GPS as the master clock mostly makes sense there.

C++11 distinguishes system_clock from steady_clock. As you say, using system_clock is a bug.

THIS is what will save us from the robot uprising!