Join devRant
Do all the things like
++ or -- rants, post your own rants, comment on others' rants and build your customized dev avatar
Sign Up
Pipeless API
From the creators of devRant, Pipeless lets you power real-time personalized recommendations and activity feeds using a simple API
Learn More
Search - "consider it and perform"
-
Not directly programming related, but damn if I'm not going to start signing off all my emails with "consider it and perform" from now on.
5 -
YGGG IM SO CLOSE I CAN ALMOST TASTE IT.
Register allocation pretty much done: you can still juggle registers manually if you want, but you don't have to -- declaring a variable and using it as operand instead of a register is implicitly telling the compiler to handle it for you.
Whats more, spilling to stack is done automatically, keeping track of whether a value is or isnt required so its only done when absolutely necessary. And variables are handled differently depending on wheter they are input, output, or both, so we can eliminate making redundant copies in some cases.
Its a thing of beauty, defenestrating the difficult aspects of assembly, while still writting pure assembly... well, for the most part. There's some C-like sugar that's just too convenient for me not to include.
(x,y)=*F arg0,argN. This piece of shit is the distillation of my very profound meditations on fuckerous thoughtlessness, so let me break it down:
- (x,y)=; fuck you in the ass I can return as many values as I want. You dont need the parens if theres only a single return.
- *F args; some may have thought I was dereferencing a pointer but Im calling F and passing it arguments; the asterisk indicates I want to jump to a symbol rather than read its address or the value stored at it.
To the virtual machine, this is three instructions:
- bind x,y; overwrite these values with Fs output.
- pass arg0,argN; setup the damn parameters.
- call F; you know this one, so perform the deed.
Everything else is generated; these are macro-instructions with some logic attached to them, and theres a step in the compilation dedicated to walking the stupid program for the seventh fucking time that handles the expansion and optimization.
So whats left? Ah shit, classes. Disinfect and open wide mother fucker we're doing OOP without a condom.
Now, obviously, we have to sanitize a lot of what OOP stands for. In general, you can consider every textbook shit, so much so that wiping your ass with their pages would defeat the point of wiping your ass.
Lets say, for simplicity, that every program is a data transform (see: computation) broken down into a multitude of classes that represent the layout and quantity of memory required at different steps, plus the operations performed on said memory.
That is most if not all of the paradigm's merit right there. Everything else that I thought to have found use for was in the end nothing but deranged ways of deriving one thing from another. Telling you I want the size of this worth of space is such an act, and is indeed useful; telling you I want to utilize this as base for that when this itself cannot be directly used is theoretically a poorly worded and overly verbose bitch slap.
Plainly, fucktoys and abstract classes are a mistake, autocorrect these fucking misspelled testicle sax.
None of the remaining deeper lore, or rather sleazy fanfiction, that forms the larger cannon of object oriented as taught by my colleagues makes sufficient sense at this level for me to even consider dumping a steaming fat shit down it's execrable throat, and so I will spare you bearing witness to the inevitable forced coprophagia.
This is what we're left with: structures and procedures. Easy as gobblin pie.
Any F taking pointer-to-struc as it's first argument that is declared within the same namespace can be fetched by an instance of the structure in question. The sugar: x ->* F arg0,argN
Where ->* stands for failed abortion. No, the arrow by itself means fetch me a symbol; the asterisk wants to jump there. So fetch and do. We make it work for all symbols just to be dicks about it.
Anyway, invoking anything like this passes the caller to the callee. If you use the name of the struc rather than a pointer, you get it as a string. Because fuck you, I like Perl.
What else is there to discuss? My mind seems blank, but it is truly blank.
Allocating multitudes of structures, with same or different types, should be done in one go whenever possible. I know I want to do this, and I know whichever way we settle for has to be intuitive, else this entire project has failed.
So my version of new always takes an argument, dont you just love slurping diarrhea. If zero it means call malloc for this one, else it's an address where this instance is to be stored.
What's the big idea? Only the topmost instance in any given hierarchy will trigger an allocation. My compiler could easily perform this analysis because I am unemployed.
So where do you want it on the stack on the heap yyou want to reutilize any piece of ass, where buttocks stands for some adequately sized space in memory -- entirely within the realm of possibility. Furthermore, evicting shit you don't need and replacing it with something else.
Let me tell you, I will give your every object an allocator if you give the chance. I will -- nevermind. This is not for your orifices, porridges, oranges, morpheousness.
Walruses.16 -
There was this question I came up with that was very good at inducing hallucinations on what at the time I thought was a *lobotomized* LLM.
I can't recall the exact wording right now, but in essence you asked it to perform OpenGL batched draw calls in straight x86_64 assembly. It would begin writing seemingly correct code, quickly run out of registers, and then immediately start making up register names instead of moving data to memory.
You may say: big deal, it has nowhere to pull from to answer such an arcane fucking riddle, so of course it's going to bullshit you. That's not the point. The point is it cannot realize that it's running out of registers, and more importantly, that it makes up a multitude of register names which _will_ degrade the context due to the introduction of absolute fabrications, leading to the error propagating further even if you clearly point out the obvious mistake.
Basically, my thought process went as follows: if it breaks at something fundamental, then it __will__ most certainly break in every other situation, in either subtle or overt ways.
Which begged the question: is it a trait of _this_ model in particular, or is it applicable to LLMs in general?
I felt I was on to something, but I couldn't be sure because, again, I was under the impression that the model on which I tested this was too old and stupid so as to consider these results significant proof of anything; AI is certainly not my field, so I had to entertain the idea that I could be wrong, albeit I did so begrudgingly -- for obvious reasons, I want at least "plausible based on my observations" rather than just "I can feel it in my balls".
So, as time went on, I made similar tests on other models whenever I got a chance to do so, and full disclosure, I spent no money on this so you may utilize that fact in your doomed attempt to disprove me lmao. Anyway, it's been a long enough while, I think, and I have a feeling you folks can guess the final answer already:
(**SLIGHTLY OMINOUS DRUM ROLL**)
The "lobotomy" in question was merely a low cap on context tokens (~4000), which I never went over in the first place; newer/"more advanced" models don't fare any better, and I have been _very_ lenient in what I consider a passable answer.
So that's that, is what I'm starting to think: I was right all along, and went through the burdensome hurdle of sincerely questioning the immaculate intuition of my balls entirely for naught -- learn from this mistake and never question your own mystical seniority. Just kidding, but not really.
The problem with the force of belief is it can work both ways, by which I mean, belief that I could be wrong is the reason I bothered looking further into it, whereas belief to the contrary very much compels me to dismiss doubt entirely. I don't need that, I need certainty, dammit. And though I cannot in good faith say that I am _certain_, "sufficiently convinced" will have to do for the time being.
TL;DR I don't know but the more I see it just seems shittier.7 -
When it comes to healthcare professionals, uniforms are not just about appearance—they play a key role in daily performance. For men working in hospitals, clinics, or medical facilities, the right scrubs for men can significantly affect comfort, focus, and overall work performance. Whether you are a doctor, nurse, or any other medical professional, understanding the factors that impact your choice of male scrubs can make a difference in how efficiently you work.
visit: lintex.in/category/male/
Durability
Working in a healthcare setting often exposes your uniform to rough conditions—spills, stains, and wear and tear. The best mens scrub options are made from durable fabrics that can withstand daily use and frequent washing. Scrubs made from lower-quality materials can fade, shrink, or lose their shape quickly, resulting in the need to replace them more often.
Durable male scrubs save time and money in the long run, ensuring you don’t have to keep buying new ones. This also adds peace of mind, as you won’t be distracted by the state of your uniform and can stay focused on patient care. When buying scrubs for men, it’s essential to consider durability to maintain a professional appearance throughout your shifts.
Breathability and Temperature Control
Healthcare professionals spend long hours on their feet, often in warm or stuffy environments. Wearing mens scrub sets made from breathable fabrics is essential to stay cool and comfortable. Scrubs with moisture-wicking properties are designed to draw sweat away from the body, keeping you dry and preventing body odor.
The best medical scrubs for men are made with fabrics that allow for airflow, preventing overheating and promoting comfort in both high-pressure and high-temperature environments. When your body temperature is regulated, it’s easier to stay focused and perform tasks without feeling distracted by discomfort.
Comfort and Fit
One of the most important factors affecting work performance is the fit and comfort of mens scrubs. Scrubs that are too tight or too loose can restrict movement, making it difficult to perform essential tasks. Best male scrubs are designed with a comfortable fit that allows healthcare professionals to move freely, bend, stretch, and lift without any discomfort. Scrubs that fit well reduce distractions, allowing you to focus on your patients and work at your best.
Additionally, the fabric’s softness is crucial for comfort, especially during long shifts. Best medical scrubs for men are often made of materials like cotton blends or moisture-wicking fabrics that provide comfort all day long. If your scrubs are uncomfortable, it could lead to irritation or fatigue, which can hinder your performance.
Pockets and Practicality
As a healthcare professional, you need quick access to medical tools and instruments like pens, thermometers, and stethoscopes. The placement and number of pockets in male scrubs can play a big role in your ability to keep essential items within reach. Scrubs with multiple, well-placed pockets allow you to organize your tools and supplies efficiently.
Choosing the best male scrubs that offer functional pockets can boost your productivity. Scrubs with extra pockets on the chest or thighs give you the ability to carry all your tools without needing to leave your station or interrupt your workflow. This feature directly impacts your ability to stay organized, focused, and on-task throughout the day.
Flexibility and Range of Motion
Another important factor that affects work performance is the level of flexibility offered by your mens scrubs. Healthcare professionals need scrubs that allow for a full range of motion to perform physical tasks such as lifting, bending, and assisting patients. Scrubs that are too stiff or tight can limit your movements, making it harder to perform hands-on tasks efficiently.
When you choose the best medical scrubs for men, opt for scrubs with stretchable fabric blends that provide flexibility without compromising comfort. This ensures that you can move easily and focus on your work without feeling restricted by your uniform.
Professional Appearance
The way you look in your scrubs plays a role in your confidence and professionalism. Scrubs that are well-fitted and stylish contribute to a more polished appearance, which can influence how patients and colleagues perceive you. Wearing the best mens scrub that fits your personal style while adhering to professional standards can make you feel more confident and prepared.
When you look professional, it not only boosts your self-esteem but also helps build trust with your patients. A neat, tidy, and well-maintained uniform is a sign of competence and care, which can positively influence your interactions with others in the healthcare setting.
1
