This is a linear sequence of bits, which when interpreted as a Game of Life board, "prints" an exact copy of itself 2 pixels to the right (leaving no trace of the original).
I suppose its job would be easier if it only had to construct a copy of itself rather than "moving" itself, but I enjoy the interpretation that it's a linear "tape" of bits which prints its own code transposed by 2 pixels, and takes an unfathomable amount of time and space to do so. Beautiful.
yeah, spaceships are pretty common (fun fact: 2 spaceships were found on the same day including this one in GOL), also in CA it's called a "spaceship". However until now there was no 1D one (1D is also called 1-cell-thick or linear).
Also, you are actually wrong, it is actually much easier to move than to self-synthesize and then remain alive like a replicator. There has been no true replicator found yet in Life as far as I know (arguably, linear propagator may be a replicator) but like millions of spaceships have been found.
can be programmed to self-replicate in any number of ways, but it's so big that it's very hard to simulate it through a full cycle. By contrast, Pavel Grankovskiy's "DOGun SaGaQR"
OK, I didn't know if it was a "true" replicator (what even does "true" mean) so I excluded it. And, running a true replicator from other rule in 0E0P takes millenia, so that leaves DOGun SaGaQR (specifically the QR configuration). Sorry.
This is a little different from most "Doom on X" projects, because the accomplishment is less about the hardware (it's just a normal computer) and more about turning a circuit-board designer into a real-time game display.
I've seen ZMachine games under a pen and also under a PostScript file. PS, unlike Doom fanboys claiming otherwise with PDF files embedding JS (and I daily play FreeDoom with daily build WADs).
ZMachine games are the 2nd most ported game in existence. The first one must be Tetris. Which has been interpreted under the ZMachine itself.
A Z3 game can run platforms which Doom can just dream:
- A PostScript virtual machine
- An FPGA implementation
- Kaypro/Altair with CP/M 2.2
- MSX 1/2
- Amiga/Atari/Mac68k
- ZX Spectrum 128
- Amstrap CPC
- TRS I-IV
- C64
- Apple II (maybe Apple 1 with a 16k RAM expansion)
- GB/C
- PDA's/Palms
- Maybe the NES with an on-screen keyboard
- Ditto with the Master System
- PS1 and PS2, N64 with an OSK again.
- Windows/Linux/Mac/Android/Whatever
- Damn Minix 2.0 under a homebrew CPU with TTL's
- Ebooks
- Maybe a shader
- Subleq+Eforth + a VM written in Eforth. At OFC glacial
speeds but with Muxleq it might run fast enough even
under my shitty n270 netbook:
> Actually, as I'm writing this, I realized that probably the music being produced by this person is actually done by a computer. So, maybe she's in the first wave of totally artificial pop stars.
Her main collaborator, co-creator and producer of many years is the artist AG Cook, who founded the label PC Music. He appears often in her music videos and gets mentioned in her lyrics. His own solo work plays a lot with pairing the artificial and the organic, taking the "slick" aesthetics of electronic pop to abrasive extremes and placing it next to vulnerability and gentleness.
That's a little ungenerous. Richer types are not intrinsically about metaprogramming, they just let you model your domain more accurately so you can turn runtime errors into build-time errors. If your system already has natural constraints, you get to document them in a machine-checkable way.
Attempt generosity. Can you think of another way to interpret the comment above yours? Is it more likely they are calling their own argument a red herring, or the one they are responding to?
If something looks like a "weird stance", consider trying harder to understand it. It's better for everyone else in the conversation.
thanks for this, you made my day! i never bothered to look.
i still remember when tables were forced out of fashion by hordes of angry div believers! they became anathema and instantly made you a pariah. the arguments were very passionate but never made any sense to me: the preaching was separating structure from presentation, mostly to enable semantics, and then semantics became all swamped with presentation so you could get those damned divs aligned in a sensible way :-)
just don't use (or abuse) them for layout but tables still seem to me the most straightforward way to render, well, tabular content.
The alternative is that they monetize it the same way Canva monetizes its other products: most features free, "pro" subscription for online collaboration/server-driven stuff and a library of stock content. Plus an enterprise tier.
All of that could get added to affinity without changing its core offering, which would be consistent with both their past strategy and their current messaging.
I suspect Canva is willing to offer Affinity for free because it holds Adobe's feet to the fire and forces them to compete on Canva's home turf: the nonprofessional design market.
There's clearly a funnel for Canva Pro upgrades, but (to my knowledge) they've never paywalled formerly-free features, and it seems to be a profitable strategy so far.
OTOH some sources report Canva paid like $400M for Affinity. Even for a company like Canva it does seem significant. They might need to adapt their strategy if the investment doesn't pan out as expected.
I think it's simpler than that. Canva's primary competitor is Adobe, and Adobe's remaining advantage is with creative professionals. That's Adobe's core market and their core revenue stream.
It's a classic "commoditize your complements" play. Canva remains profitable without charging for Affinity, but Adobe can't stay profitable if they stop charging for Photoshop/Illustrator.
The business justification works without imputing any more sinister motives than that.
I mean, 9/10ths of the dark-pattern distrustworthy bullshit businesses pull is not required to attain or maintain "profitability," it's just squeezing every dime of revenue from their customers.
I would frankly rather pay for software then be left wondering if I can trust free commercial software.
Would be really nice if we had more of the "just pay" options. As it is the "just pay" options mostly also can't be trusted any more than the free(-mium) options, and both will try their best to "squeeze every dime of revenue".
This is a linear sequence of bits, which when interpreted as a Game of Life board, "prints" an exact copy of itself 2 pixels to the right (leaving no trace of the original).
I suppose its job would be easier if it only had to construct a copy of itself rather than "moving" itself, but I enjoy the interpretation that it's a linear "tape" of bits which prints its own code transposed by 2 pixels, and takes an unfathomable amount of time and space to do so. Beautiful.
reply