[OT] Destroying all human life on Earth AT THE SAME TIME

[Gregor Richards]

superdan wrote:
> Gregor Richards Wrote:
> 
>> This is what we call a "joke".
> 
> no pal. this is what /you/ call a "joke". wasn't funny the first time. second time looks stupid.

This "we" is what we call the singular "we". So's that one. And with the 
insults I'm crying on the inside. Actually, I'm laughing, but y'know how 
sometimes laughing and crying sort of sound similar? Yeah, that's the 
situation.

> 
>> On the one hand it's a parody of the 
>> always-annoying real-life-algorithm thread, on the other hand it's a 
>> parody of the needlessly-loaded choice of settings for the 
>> oh-didn't-I-mention-it's-always-annoying real-life-algorithm. This 
>> problem could be formalized as a simple tree-based message-passing 
>> communication problem, but instead we've gone political. Well, so long 
>> as war is involved, let's step it up and destroy everything. Yeeee haw.
> 
> so ur the sharpest tool in the shed eh. why don't you send in your solution. tree-based message-passing sounds like bullshit you'd say when you have no idea. this is a classic signal propagation problem in circuits, i solved it all the time when i was working on async vlsi. and tree-based message-passing has nothing to do with it. the man made it a story. that /is/ funny. if it annoys u piss off.

Yes, my joke is my CLAIM OF DOMINANCE. Anyone who uses humor is claiming 
that they are the greatest of all human beings. HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST 
OTHERWISE YOU HUMORLESS PIG.

It amuses me that my realization of the problem is, to you, a statement 
that I must be utterly ignorant of everything, but you immediately 
proceed to make a different realization of the problem. And yet, 
scanning over the responses, you too haven't posted an actual algorithm. 
Hey wait, it amuses me, which must mean you were making a joke, which 
means you're CLAIMING DOMINANCE! Damn!

Why is it a tree-based message-passing problem? Because this is 
software, dingus, not hardware. You have a TREE of actors (or threads, 
or processes as you prefer. I'll go with actors because they're usually 
associated with message-passing concurrency). Every actor needs to send 
MESSAGES to all its subordinates. Why, lo and behold, it's a tree-based 
message-passing problem!

Yeesh.

  - Gregor Richards