I know I shouldn't bite, but I just want to so bad...
>so all you've said is
Actually what I said was "a generalized set of the rules" for Go is Turing Complete. Go in itself is not, because the end-state of the game is indeterminate. Just as a "regular-ass" game of MtG without a very specific and artificial construction is not Turing Complete, in and of itself.
>That's cool
I can appreciate stamp collecting, and I don't want to say that it's an invalid use of time. There are plenty of worse hobbies. But my point is that any of an infinite, arbitrary, and inconsequential number of conceivable systems are "Turing Complete," and personally I don't find this very compelling.
How many books in the Library of Babel[1] describe a Turing Complete system?
>Turing completeness is/is not
I stated as much in a comment below, or you could have inferred the same by my interpretation of the XKCD comic, but thanks for assuming I'm incompetent and acting in bad faith.
The author admits he has constructed an artificial scenario under which a Turing Machine is generated. This is exactly the same as using the rules of MtG as a notation to create a machine.
A generalized set of the rules for the game Go is Turing Complete. A generalized set of the rules for the game Go Fish is Turing Complete.
A pencil and paper is Turing Complete. A bunch of rocks in a grid is Turing Complete.[1]
Sorry to be an ass but I can't even guess how many "X is Turing Complete" things I've seen over the years. Turing's point wasn't to define what can be a computer, it was to define the limits of computation itself. Which is a far more interesting topic, hence my irritation with this post.
Thanks for this well-written and concise explanation. It took me from "what the hell is this BS" to "oh that makes sense."
I bother with this "thanks" message because I was ready to write a tirade about the technophile echo chamber of nonsense web widgets that seem to show up on HN regularly; solutions in search of problems that should never exist in the first place. Unfortunately, Sanity's website screams "we got some graphics people together to dress up some code we stole and obfuscated from GitHub," instead of "professional solution to a real problem." They should just replace the whole design with your reply here, in plain text. But then I guess it would be far more difficult to convince the CIO to adopt.
There should be some kind of hidden standard file on all these sites that you can go to, like "sanity.io/ACTUAL.txt" or something. It would just give you the actual story of what's happening, and not use words like "touchpoint," nor have 90s Hollywood garbage flying all over the screen. Again, I understand the purpose of the lightshow, but it usually causes me to immediately close the tab. I only stuck around for this because the problem of CMSes sucking is all too real.
It's not clear to me why this was made. We'll ignore the question of why you would want an ISO (you can write a DMG direct to USB, and Jamf, DeployStudio, etc, require a PKG...), and move on to optimization.
You can skip a lot of the convert/copy/asr steps by just using the hdiutil -srcfolder command, targeted to the createinstallmedia DMG, in conjunction with your target format. (This can be reproduced in Disk Utility as well, by the way.) As far as I can tell, you need about 3 commands here, and not a 189 line bash program with functions.
As mentioned elsewhere, Disk Maker X is the way to go. Thanks for sharing your work though, even if it's a bit over-built.
https://github.com/atom/atom/issues/13558