It's not so widely used and it's not explained in the first couple screenfuls of TFA (which by itself is weirdly structured, taking entire paragraphs to explain when it was introduced, when it was discovered, etc. before even explaining what it actually is).
Of course the title was chosen when the article was first published on a site dedicated to security, where probably everyone knows it. This suggests that insisting on unmodified titles when republishing in HN is a poor rule.
I don't get it. If the ring structure has 4 field (excluding the cold ones), and all 4 have alignment constraints, doesn't it define 4 zones in 4 cache lines, and not 2?
I expected head and cached_tail, for example, to share the same line, but since they are both 128-byte aligned, they end up in separate lines. Granted, both lines are dedicated to only one side of the producer-consumer pipe, but we're wasting cache lines for nothing.
> You do seem to get more | shaped pieces when you leave those spaces open on the board.
I don't think this is correct, nor that it can be evinced from the article. What it does say is that the sequences that led them to achieve their target show a higher incidence of I shapes. This is because all the ones that show less I shapes have been "pruned away" by the cost function, which favors I shapes.
This has some relationship with the anthropic principle: isn't it strange that, of all the possible universes, we ended up in the one that seems fine-tuned exactly for life as we know it?
I can't speak for others, but I downvote to recommend other readers that the post is not worth reading. Not because I disagree with it, but because it's off topic in a way or another.
If TFA is about a tool, I tend to downvote comments that don't talk about the merits of tool but rather about the hosting website, the language it's written in, whether or not it "smells AI", English mistakes in the readme, and so on.
On the other side, if I reply to a comment I always upvote it, even if my reply is to refute it. In fact if I felt the need to add anything to it, it was by definition worth dealing with it!
Nice idea. I'm just wondering how to debug code written in fusion... probably you must focus on one of outputs, debug that one, and then back-fit the changes to the fusion source. :/
The concept is very similar to robin hood. In fact most of the performance charts show that the curves of hopscotch and robin hood are very close. I think I'd prefer robin hood as it's well known.
Considering that 2 new pieces are spawned for each captured one, if you keep progressing you will exhaust the real estate, sooner or later. The only way to go on infinitely is not capturing, but that means not scoring points. Hardly satisfying, though.
For example today's board can be played infinitely by moving between a8 and b7. Zero points, infinite game!
I hate that it immediately flags your errors. First, because it doesn't forgive the casual finger slipping or forgetting if you are in pen or pencil mode. And then because it partially gives away the solution.
It's not so widely used and it's not explained in the first couple screenfuls of TFA (which by itself is weirdly structured, taking entire paragraphs to explain when it was introduced, when it was discovered, etc. before even explaining what it actually is).
Of course the title was chosen when the article was first published on a site dedicated to security, where probably everyone knows it. This suggests that insisting on unmodified titles when republishing in HN is a poor rule.