/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.6633513]

Holy. Shit.

Turn to channel 5 RIGHT NOW

Apparently the voyager spacecrafts were intercepted about a day ago and we have just received this message

[Anonymous No.6633519]

[Anonymous No.6633520]

>>6633513
Looks like Korean.

[Anonymous No.6633522]

looks like chinese

[Anonymous No.6633523]

>>6633513
I don't have channel five, I can afford satellite tv.

[Anonymous No.6633524]

>>6633522
indeed, the symbols describe a number system and derives the chinese remainder theorem

[Anonymous No.6633529]

>>6633522
Too simple and blocky, doesn't look much like Chinese to me
>膣内射精
>矍鑠

[Anonymous No.6633530]

Voyager was launched in 1977, they're 37 light years away by now you fucking moron

Which means if we're hearing about it now, then it was intercepted 37 years ago.

[Anonymous No.6633531]

>>6633530
>voyager moves at the speed of light

[Anonymous No.6633533]

> channel 5
Which locale?

[Anonymous No.6633537]

>>6633531
It's space, there's no friction.

[Anonymous No.6633538]

What if aliens beamed us the solution to all 6 millenium problems in a show of superiority

[Anonymous No.6633539]

>>6633537
That's entirely irrelevant. Voyager did not move at the speed of light.

OP, can you give me an online source? What news organization is it? I don't have a TV.

[Anonymous No.6633540]

>>6633537

[Anonymous No.6633541]

>>6633537
I don't think you understand how space works, you can increase speed indefinitely (assuming you have the power for it), and not slow down (outside of minuscule gravitational shit), but you still need to accelerate in space.

[Anonymous No.6633543]

>>6633541
>>6633539
Voyager was launched to take advantage of a multiplanatery alignment that propeled it to 99.95% the speed of light

[Anonymous No.6633545]

>>6633537
38120 miles per hour is nowhere near the speed of light. It's currently around 35.5 light hours from Earth. I googled that shit, so you know it's on the up and up.

[Anonymous No.6633547]

>>6633543
I can confirm this, I was on the Voyager when it launched

[Anonymous No.6633548]

>>6633547
that's impossible, that would mean this message is nearly 20 years old at least and 4chan was made in 2003

[Anonymous No.6633549]

>>6633548
No, I jumped out.

[Anonymous No.6633561]

>>6633549
>impling you can jump out of a moving platform

2/10

[Anonymous No.6633564]

>>6633561
>implying I can jump at all after falling from space and landing on my feet

[Anonymous No.6633566]

>>6633540
Dat code

[Anonymous No.6633569]

>>6633561
Technically possible if your legs are like that of a cricket.

[Anonymous No.6633576]

>>6633569
Not with a chair, you'd just push it down. If it were a larger object and you could jump upwards at ~60mph, you might make it.

[Anonymous No.6633578]

>>6633569
no that's only possible because of the difference in mass

[Anonymous No.6633580]

>>6633578
oops not mass meant buoyancy

[Anonymous No.6633581]

>>6633566
There are CS grads that are actually this incompetent
>I've personally interviewed graduates who can't answer "Write a loop that counts from 1 to 10"
http://www.kegel.com/academy/getting-hired.html

[Anonymous No.6633582]

>>6633580
>buoyancy
You mean pressure, retard

[Anonymous No.6633583]

>>6633581
that's a myth

[Anonymous No.6633584]

>>6633582
has nothing to do with pressure

[Anonymous No.6633586]

>>6633584
I didn't say pressure, I said BUOYANCY
FUCK

[Anonymous No.6633592]

>>6633524
>indeed, the symbols describe a number system and
>indeed, the symbols describe a nsa

[Anonymous No.6633595]

>>6633581
Not being able to do that under interview pressure is pretty ridiculous , but in general the industry puts undue weight on such testing given that it doesn't bear much relation to the way people actually solve coding problems day to day. The best I've seen was a LONG telephone interview, followed by a 'coding challenge' to do in your own time (apparently LOT of people drop out at this stage,) then finally a few relatively straightforward questions at the end of the face-to-face interview just to make sure you haven't managed to bullshit them so far.

[Anonymous No.6633600]

>>6633513
Prime numbers up to 89 and then the 37th Mersenne prime at the bottom.

*yawn*

[Anonymous No.6633602]

>>6633513
>channel 5

what are you retarded? you mean, CNN or BBC or some other globally recognized media brand, right? RIGHT??

[Anonymous No.6633626]

>>6633513
Let me translate this...

0th rule: do not talk about aliens.

1st rule: do NOT talk about aliens

2nd rule: we are aliens

3rd rule: aliens are legion

4th rule: aliens never forgive

5th rule: aliens can be a horrible senseless, uncaring monster

6th rule: aliens still deliver... HEY! WTF?!

being the little girl... upward ascension on the vertical reproductive organs...


FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUCK YOU, space m00tles!

[Anonymous No.6633644]

>>6633520

[Anonymous No.6633648]

>>6633538
They would instantly gain the respect of scientists and mathematicians alike. They would be a great idea on their part, if they could somehow figure out what the problems even are.

[Anonymous No.6633649]

>>6633513

Any confirmation?

[Anonymous No.6633658]

>>6633649
Nothing on NASA.
Nothing on social media.
Nothing on google.
Base 10 numbers.

It's a fake, did you really expect anything else?

At least OP put some effort into it, my favourite part is the binary page numbers at the top.

[Anonymous No.6633664]

>>6633649
<sigh>

Of course not.

Besides, it's all numbers in base 10.

[Anonymous No.6633666]

>>6633658
Seconded. OP did put work into it.

[Anonymous No.6633674]

>>6633513
>>6633513
Too much redundancy.

[Anonymous No.6633677]

>>6633658
sage
He didn't put work into this, I've seen it before on /sci/

[Anonymous No.6633678]

>>6633677
Well, whatever. It is still obviously is bullshit after looking at it for 15 seconds, no matter who made it.

[Anonymous No.6633680]

>>6633537
There is Science Friction

[not native speaker No.6633682]

>>6633540
Industrial engineer here, bringing those source code at work no matter how great your CS grades were I would definitely fire you.

rage/10

[Anonymous No.6633684]

>>6633682
if it looks stupid, but works
it ain't stupid

[Anonymous No.6633687]

Why would alien = sign be so similar to ours?

[Anonymous No.6633688]

>>6633682

[Anonymous No.6633689]

>>6633684
>what is maintenance

kill yourself

[Anonymous No.6633690]

>>6633689
>I'm going to maintain some odd number picker shit
stop being an idiot, a compiler will optimize that anyway and literally nobody but sperglords give a shit

[not native speaker No.6633691]

>>6633684

Maybe for your homework, but 1 second wasted in a plant cost a lot. The production system can be entirely detain for several hours for coders who can't even follow the main rules of standardization and simplicity.


Don't get me wrong I am not like a Nazi but procedures safe lives, time, money.

[Anonymous No.6633699]

2 3 5 7 11 13 17 19 23...

[Anonymous No.6633722]

>>6633690
if you write up some little script that way, how are you going to develop the architecture of a major program?

bad habits are just that. bad.

[Anonymous No.6633955]

0=0000 1=0001 2=0010 3=0011 4=0100 5=0101 6=0110 7=0111 8=1000 9=1001 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
2 3 5 7 11 13 17 19 23 29
31 37 41 43 47 53 59 61 67 71
73 79 83 89


2^(3021377)-1

[Anonymous No.6634104]

>>6633530
now kill yourself

[Anonymous No.6634135]

>>6633561
I actualyl couldn't figure out why this wasn't a legitimate strategy until I was at least 20 years old

[Anonymous No.6634278]

do the probes have some sort of google car technology?
I don't understand how it is not wrecked by the kuipier belt..

[Anonymous No.6634283]

>>6633540
>not using modulo

[Anonymous No.6634286]

>>6633513
>turn to channel 5
>not realizing that channels are provincial

[Anonymous No.6634287]

>>6634283
> not getting the joke

[Anonymous No.6634361]

>>6633538
The would win six million dollars.

[Anonymous No.6634412]

>send more chuck barry

[Anonymous No.6634414]

>>6633513
>send more chuck berry

[Anonymous No.6635285]

>>6633513
It clearly says ayy lmao

[Anonymous No.6635629]

>>6633519
shi- nice snipe.

[Anonymous No.6635760]

>>6634283
>not using bitwise and
modulo is an expensive operation.

[Anonymous No.6636038]

>>6633533
its a meme

>holy shit look at this, turn to channel 5!

[Anonymous No.6637503]

>>6635760
Depending on the architecture running the program. If your computer is x86, the modulo operator it's dandy. If your architecture is RISC (like seen in embedded systems) it's not and you'd probably be using the AND instruction anyway.

[Anonymous No.6637953]

>>6637503
sure, modulo is never faster than a mask operation though

[Anonymous No.6639631]

>>6633530
Which means it got intercepted on voyager's takeoff.
This bad b8 was bad m8.

[None !SSDoCt0rTo No.6639637]

They got my messages!
Yaaaaaaay!!!

I've been sending out notes for them for awhile. Left them some clues of our competency, showed them a simple equation for the Universal Waveform.

Guys, in case you haven't caught on yet, we have been on a large precipice as a species. We have had contact for awhile now.

This moment has been prophesied for a very long time. We have neighbours.
Also, lol @ the people in the thread talking about "the speed of light".
We have had tabs on us for millenia; do some cultural research.

-Dr. John D. Titor

[None !SSDoCt0rTo No.6639639]

>>6633538
already solved most of these, posted the solutions on reddit and /sci/

[None !SSDoCt0rTo No.6639643]

>>6633548
>>6633530
>1977
>1980
>Stanley Kubrick's The Shining, Apollo 11
>Jack Daniel Torrence, JDT
>Mr. Dick Hallorrann, DH
>Dr. Hallorann, John D. Titor

[None !SSDoCt0rTo No.6639645]

>>6633538
also, general rules of the Galactic Federation in service of The Infinite Creator is to not interfere with a species' development unless necessary as a harbinger of survival

[Anonymous No.6639659]

>>6633688

is there like a series of these?

[Anonymous No.6639661]

>>6639659
/r/programminghorror

[Anonymous No.6639684]

>>6637953
For the purposes of dev time and readable code, modulo is an acceptable operation. If prompted, a compiler would optimize that down into a bit mask anyways.

[Anonymous No.6639712]

>>6639684
that's a shitty argument, why is "%2" more readable than "&1"?
if anything you could get confused whether %2 does "0,1,2,0,1,2" or "0,1,0,1,0,1" when iterated, the effects of &1 is impossible to accidentally get wrong.

>blindly relying on the compiler optimizing your code for muh incompetent devs
They're here, the end times.

[Anonymous No.6639782]

>>6639712

You should be fired and I can only hope we'll find someone to redo all your crap.

[Anonymous No.6641165]

>>6633529
He's not saying its written in chinese, he's saying it derives a Chinese mathematical theorm

[Anonymous No.6641167]

>>6633519
top kek

[Anonymous No.6641628]

>>6639782
> I can only hope we'll find someone to redo all your crap.
deoptimize my code so you don't have to learn about bit masks you mean?

[Anonymous No.6641631]

>>6633540
I laughed.

[Anonymous No.6641632]

>>6633561
I actually used to believe that in 13-14.

[None !!BJiYgff8zf2 No.6641675]

>>6633561
>>6633576
>>6634135
>>6641632

Are you all pretending to be retarded? It's called Newton's Third Law. The "troll" comic is completely legit.

[Anonymous No.6641678]

>>6641675
if you just jump hard enough, sure

[Anonymous No.6641692]

>>6633688
what's wrong with this one?
seems ok

[None !!BJiYgff8zf2 No.6641699]

>>6641692

It's just redundant. y=x would be faster I think.

[Anonymous No.6641707]

>>6633581
>>I've personally interviewed graduates who can't answer "Write a loop that counts from 1 to 10"
>http://www.kegel.com/academy/getting-hired.html
I really doubt that this is as he presents it. You can't get a CS degree without writing simple programs like that.

It's probably more like people who falsely claimed to have CS degrees, or people who heard the question asked and realized they didn't want to work for someone who would ask for such a ridiculous thing.

Remember, job interviews are a two-way selection process, especially for highly qualified people. Prospective employers can get rejected for misstep in the interview, just as applicants can.

[Anonymous No.6641758]

>>6633537
top kek

[Anonymous No.6641769]

>>6633955
Uaguagugaugaugaugauga

[Anonymous No.6641893]

>>6633540
So the program finds odd numbers by producing all numbers ever made, and specifically picking out the odd numbers? But if you already have a list of the odd numbers why not just replace this program with a list of odd numbers?

[Anonymous No.6641903]

>>6633513
It was a hoax. OP is faggot.

[Anonymous No.6641907]

>>6639712
I am a non technical fag. Please explain why your right, pretty please?

[Anonymous No.6642019]

>>6634278
Asteroid belts don't look like they look in Star Wars in real life. The asteroids are gorillions of kilometers away from each other, so a collision with one is not likely.

[Anonymous No.6642155]

>>6641907
We're talking about whether modulo (%) or bitwise and (&) is the better operation to use instead of the clusterfuck in >>6633540.

With modulo you check the remainder after division, so a number n%2 would have a remainder (1) if it's odd
with bitwise and you mask the binary representation of a number with logical and, the binary representation of an odd number will always have the bit representing 1 set, an odd number thus returns 1 with the operation n&1.

My argument is that since a processor can do bit mask operations extremely fast (one clock cycle) because they're fundamentally constructed around those operations (read up on what an ALU is if you're curious) and modulo is a slightly more complex operation taking more clock cycles, the bitwise and is the superior alternative.

The other anon's argument is that the modulo operation is better to use because it's "more readable" and saves dev time somehow, even though it's not as good as a bit mask and the only reason i can come up with where it would actually save dev time and be more readable is if the devs are somehow uncomfortable with the & operator, which they shouldn't be.

The code wouldn't be all that different:
for(int i=0;i<Array.Length;i++){
if(i&1 == 1){
Console.Write(i);
}
}
versus:
for(int i=0;i<Array.Length;i++){
if(i%2 == 1){
Console.Write(i);
}
}
The other part of his argument is that a compiler can tell if the denominator in the modulo is a power of two, and if it is it automatically optimizes the modulo into a bitwise and anyway, so you might as well just use modulo.

I thought that was a weird argument though
>tfw captcha is "andMPle and"