phf: correct approach is of course common lisp's readtable, but i don't think LiSP covers that

phf: i don't think LiSP even covers gc until much later

phf: huh i don't remember that style at all. looks like metal too, the ones that i had were plastic, kind of like https://hattonsimages.blob.core.windows.net/products/L350032-LN_3314489_Qty1_1.jpg

phf: esthlos: i don't think that's the case, squeak was his main apple project, but even going before than dynabook was already in the works at parc

phf: mircea_popescu: i don't know if there's a definition, "idea" would've been a better term. in any case i've never heard anything concrete, except for the papert/piaget/montessori like esthlos said statements.

phf: http://btcbase.org/log/2018-06-15#1825808 << slow progress, snake soldered but untested. i realized last night that i don't have any linux devices, and was too tired to figure out how to do usb-serial/../new_id equivalent on a bsd. ☝︎

phf: asciilifeform: i think you _might've_ misunderstood the thread. the point seem to have been not so much that the whole attempt is pointless, but it's the framing that was questionable. if you make a couple of snakes and send them at own expense to interested l1/l2, i don't see how it won't be worthwhile. we just don't have any idle reversers, who want to take a stab at it for the lulz, available at the moment. ☟︎

phf: well, if we don't, i'll see if i can get an unlock through corporate channels, and just use it as a one off machine ☟︎

phf: i don't think "can still buy and diddle of amazon in a month" is adequate test for "didn't leak the patch to google". but i don't think there's a procedure to test the goal in general (see absence of evidence above). perhaps you could restate the goal, but then whatever restatement i'm not sure it will be under the control of the participant. in fact as mircea_popescu pointed out, a restatement of this particular goal simply introduces a random element

phf: asciilifeform: i'm up for a job of contest arbiter, i don't think that what you're proposing is arbitration. i thought that you're going to give goals, and it's up to me to evaluate if the goals have been achieved. but you want me to merely verify your procedure. that's fine, but that doesn't make me an arbitrator.

phf: asciilifeform: i see, i'm sorry, but i don't think i can properly be called a referee under these conditions. i can do independent testing for you though, i.e. test against current c101pa, and against one that i purchase at a time you indicate.

phf: yes, but if you are going to establish a procedure why do you need an arbitrator, or in other words, i don't see a point of separate arbitrator if the process is your own ☟︎

phf: the discussions after that though are all over the place, and introduce some requirements that i don't think i can arbitrate like "didn't leak the code back to google"