I don't know what to think of a website that scrolls with 2 fps on mobile, lagging my whole browser and loading in about 10 seconds while having "GOLEM IS THE NEW WAY THE INTERNET WILL WORK " as it's introducing heading..

I mean the idea sounds great, I am very much in favour of decentralization, Ethereum, etc. but this website doesn't really show competence

Does competence in front-end web engineering matter when you're building a decentralized supercomputer?

Unfortunately having a flashy website seems to beat out good UX when it comes to attracting the 8 digit sums regularly being thrown at ICOs.

> for a complicated reason I can explain if anyone's interested

PoS?

Proof of stake. Instead of miners trying to make valid hashes, people bet their ether on which blocks will be accepted, and the blocks people bet on the most are the ones that get accepted. (That's Ethereum's PoS design anyway.)

In proof of work, the miners race each other to make blocks. Any time they spend actually validating transactions slows them down; they might find a block and not get their reward if another miner was a bit faster. The transaction fees have to be high enough to compensate for this risk. Since the reward goes up as the coin price goes up, the fees go up proportionally too.

In proof of stake, this race goes away. Blocks are released on a fixed time schedule. The fee no longer has to compensate for risk due to lost time, and instead just has to pay for actual computational cost of the transactions.

It could just count the number of logins and do a transaction at the end of the day|week|month

There is also bc [1] which isn't stack based and pretty standard. See [2] for a discussion on dc vs bc.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bc_(programming_language)

[2]: https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/124518/how-is-bc-di...

It could be that they just don't want to deal and test with older versions. By only specifying a certain number of supported displays they essentially guarantee it works for those, that doesn't mean however it can't work on others, you just don't get the assurance of it.

I have never really brought it when they say that they are disabling some feature because they can't support it, as if there's an avalanche of phonecalls that is swamping their tech support resources. By that logic, why don't they just disable support for any third party monitors? Actually, better not give them ideas...

They haven't disabled it, they just don't officially support it. It works fine, you just can't get help from them if it doesn't.

That's literally the second thing the website mentions: To use curly brackets for invisible brackets:

    sqrt{1+2x^2/3}
    x^2/{3x}

> Perhaps a more apt title would be "Python for the GPU"

Why Python? Futhark is a purely functional language and looks a lot like Haskell, so I think "Haskell for the GPU" would be a better title

(Author here.)

OCaml would be an even more apt comparison.

I find it a bit ironic that of all the related submissions I (and others) have made, it's the one with the bizarre title that hits the front page!

Might be related to that GPU-accelerated APL compiler which was on the front page a week or so ago

I can recommend https://www.passwordstore.org/

> Sort algorithm broken in Swift

I really want to believe you, but I can't find any information on this, what are you referring to?