Read the book "Behold!! The Protong!" and you'll get an even more intriguing explanation. These statues are a WARNING TO THE FUTURE that the great CATACLYSM, which comes in cycles, will HAPPEN AGAIN.
Below the ground-line (which represents the flood survivors emerging from the murk) these statues are holding the "Bi" - an iconic feature representative of the grand CATACLYSM where the balance of water is tipped, and which you can find in almost all ancient artwork, regardless of the culture that creates it - an ocean-covering flood which occurs when the land masses move in reaction to Solar activity.
Easter Island is a WARNING set up by an ancient civilization to protect us from ignorance.
Let us never learn the extent to which SZUKALSKI was RIGHT!
I would have thought quoting SZUKALSKI alone would have set that off, but okay .. not that I'm a huge fan of Zermatism (a subject I would have thought at least a few hackernews visitors might be familiar with) but the ideas of SZUKALSKI are intriguing from the perspective of being able to look outside the box. There is scientific analytical thought, and then there is artistic motive desire, and if you apply both to the same subject you often get surprising results.
In my opinion, the idea of Protong-as-a-warning has quite a bit of validity, if only intelligent minds weren't so easily dissuaded from looking outside their own little boxes now and then ...
If the world was covered with an ocean any time soon (call it the last million years so we can include every human culture) then there would be obvious physical traces, and salt-intolerant species, including plants, would have died.
The oceans move, was his point. I would investigate the science, but the science-fiction of a language called Protong is far more intriguing and worthwhile a pursuit. While I will always respect the mainstream desire to discern the truth, a fiction about Easter Island may be just as valid.
Whenever I see "may" I have to remember that it's essentially meaningless, and your text is equally valid changing it to "may not", as in "a fiction about Easter Island may not be just as valid."
First you say "apply both to the same subject" and now you say that's fiction may be "just as valid."
Szukalski's fiction is 30 volumes of text. You pick out that "the oceans move"? (By which you mean "cover the Earth", not continental drift or tides.) What about that human culture comes from a people on Easter Island, after Noah's flood? How is that fiction at all valid? Races derive from crossbreeding of species, again, after the flood? How is that at all valid?
If it's hard to pick the valid fiction from the invalid, then what's the point? Isn't it like looking up the date by randomly picking a day from this year's calendar?
this is ridiculous - why do ignorant people have to always resort to using the race card to stir up controversy over nothing. people need to get the hell over themselves imo and realize no one cares about that stupid shit this day and age.
Sounds like someone pissed in your Wheaties this morning. Anything to get more people to give vim/the vim style of doing things a chance is always cool in my book.
Speaking of pain inducing, I found watching the bubble sort very pain inducing! I've always known it was slow compared to other options, but this make you never want to see the thing mentioned again!
Looks like bubble sort is so slow because this implementation has a very high ratio between the costs of a compare and a swap. A swap involves redrawing large parts of the graphical area, while a compare is fast. Bubble sort makes N^2 swaps, as compared to insertion sort which makes N^2 comparisons but only N swaps.
When a swap costs the same as a compare, bubble sort is as fast as the other N^2 sorts.
Turn off "Quick Compare" to make comparisons take longer if you want a different ratio. By default, it takes about 1/15 as long to compare as swap (I thought the visualization looked better this way).
I know Bubble sort is "bad", but there's no reason to make it worse than it needs to be. The current algorithm continues comparing the items that have already "bubbled" (or in this case, "sunk") by iterating the whole length on each pass, rather than shorting the loop to only consider the unsorted portion.
A minor tweak is (changed lines marked with #):
bubbleSort = ->
VA.locals.swapped = true
y = VA.length # grab initial length
while VA.locals.swapped
y-- # shorten sorted portion on each pass
VA.locals.swapped = false
for x in [0...y] # only iterate to y
VA.locals.x = x
if VA.gt(x, x + 1)
VA.swap(x, x + 1)
VA.locals.swapped = true
bubbleSort()
some of that is good and some isn't. #7 is right to an extent, but anyone that acts the way you said you were treated is ridiculous and needs to be brought down a notch.
Actually, been around longer than that just finally made an account because there was something worth commenting on.
Keep down voting tho because of not liking the truth being said about how this site is turning more into what I stated previously, or better yet emo posts about how xyz startup is failing and the founders want to know why people don't like them
imo this whole series is very good. I have noticed that just about any talk that Douglas Crockford gives I either learn something new or have something I knew a little bit become more solidified.
If you develop in python and/or javascript(and others but those are what I use most), and haven't checked out PyCharm you are missing out. I looked all over for a good ide with convenient things integrated(mercurial, git, gae, etc). Definitely the best thing out there IMO. The 2.0 changes are look nice so far.
