Quality explanations of technical issues

I'm a big fan of clear explanations. If you want to explain something to someone (and given the alternative is letting everyone learn from their own mistakes, this has got to be good), clear explanations are really important. I've tutored computer science at uni and I've explained open source concepts to a whole range of people as part of my work at OSS Watch and come to learn that an analogy can be very useful.

Imagine my pleasure at reading this analogy of a really rather complex compiler / interrupt issue.

For the record, I know nothing about the x86 interrupts, since we were taught interrupts using the much simpler RISC SPARC system.

Tinkering with suffix-trees and algorithms

I've been tinkering with learning algorithms for my computer-go player, jgogears.

It linearises board positions and then uses classic string processing techniques, principally a large suffix-tree. Suffix-trees are widely used in information processing, information theory and compression fields of computer science. I also used them extensively in my recent Ph.D.

Currently I'm training with about 200 go games (~40k moves), giving me about 950K nodes in my suffix tree.

I've just switched my linearisation method from a strict distance measure to one which capitalises on adjacency much better.

There are a number of tuning parameters for the rate at which I grow the tree. I'll be tinkering with them as I increase the number of boards I'm using for training.