A REASON FOR RENUNCIATION
Possessions leave us at the end,
However long they stay;
Then why not cast aside, my friend,
What leaves us anyway?
And if they leave against our will,
The heart takes time in mending;
If given willingly, they fill
That heart with joy unending.
It's even older the page says "Last updated 2017" and the repo goes back to 2011, and in fact see HN discussion from November 2011: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3267187
Incidentally, it is a matter of some debate whether Bhartṛhari the philosopher and Bhartṛhari the poet are the same person or two (or more, in the case of the anthology of verses). Oral tradition holds them to be the same person, scholars have debated back and forth. I have a collection of the poems here: https://shreevatsa.net/bhartrhari/web/ (will clean it up someday)
I have the A.N.D.Haksar, Purohit Gopinath translations of all the Satakas and Swami Madhavananda's translation of the "Vairagya Shatakam". Need to get the others ;-)
I couldn't add the Haksar translation as it's still under copyright, but the site has the other two. Plan to add others like M. R. Kale's (https://github.com/shreevatsa/bhartrhari/issues/11) — just need a chunk of time one of these weekends.
One thing you might want to add after each author's name is which categories (viz. Niti, Shringara and Vairagya) they have translated. Due to excessive prudishness many have omitted the Shringara satakam which is quite silly (this is what makes him "Human"). I got the Haksar and Gopinath editions specifically because they include all three categories. A.N.D.Haksar in particular has translated many of the works in Sanskrit literature into easy English (including the Kama Sutra) and does not censor anything.
Also i suggest that you add author names of all known translations of the work whether you have access to their actual text or not (due to copyright etc. reasons). That way your site can be a one-stop portal to Bhartrhari's Sataka-Trayam.
PS: In case you don't already know of it; there is a much larger work in the Tamil language named Tirukkural which is also divided into three similar categories (viz. Aram, Porul and Kamam) the whole having a total of 1330 couplets (133 chapters of 10 couplets each). There are many English translations available of which the original Penguin edition titled "Kural" translated by P.S.Sundaram is pretty good and done in the original couplet style. For a more detailed study see the 2-vol translation with commentary by S.M.Diaz.
Wow I had forgotten that I had answered that question on StackOverflow!
So at the time my conclusion had been that there was no mistake (interpreting the "repeat" as a loop), but it's arguable… maybe if the person who posted the question had asked Knuth instead, he'd have had a reward check?
This is a really nice presentation of how some people play the authors' lawn-moving game better than others -- a great analysis of the gameplay. But the majority of comments on this HN thread right now are reacting to the title rather than to the article, as if it were about real-life lawn-moving.
And not enough people are reacting to the rocks that should just be removed in the first place to make the optimised algorithm a lot simpler. And I thought I was on HN.
There's a spot where you could just lift up the mower over the rocks to get from one side to the other. Or at least, that's how I would have done, but I have a tiny lawn and a reel mower.
This is such a surprising comment! Bradbury's style is very sparse and plain, and much closer to Hemingway's end of the spectrum than to the other. Where would you put, say, Nabokov, Melville, or Lovecraft?
For OP: I think "Type specimen" should be the default sample text, just to get readers into the right spirit. :)
For anyone else reading this: make sure you click on the "controls & metrics" at the bottom to try out all the options (such as comparing with your browser's "text-wrap: pretty"); it's really cool!
It is the default if you open the demo on a narrow screen! It has a more striking difference between browser and justif layouts at narrow widths than the Alice sample. But maybe you’re right and it should be the default for everyone.
By your reasoning, multiplying two numbers in binary involves no multiplication at all, because multiplying by 1 and multiplying by 0 are both trivial operations.
But obviously multiplying two n-bit binary numbers is not done in O(1) time, so "only counting the number of multiplies" is not a meaningful model, and not the model adopted by the researchers quoted in the article.
reply