...

> The prospect of recursive self improvement feels more to real to me all of sudden

you really don't understand why these are two completely different tasks?

do you agree with this?

don't you realize it's exactly like

"attractive women reject the wrong suitors"

???

Yes what part of my response to you gave you the impression that I did not?

> Meanwhile in racket I got arbitrary balanced ternary manista and exponent precision in less time it took to write this post.

Your claim was that it could not be done in cpp, not that it was faster/simpler/whatever-new-goalpost-you're-now-presenting in racket.

> less time it took to write this post

An interpreted language with a runtime and a GC is easier to use than a systems language? I think this novel discovery is worth a turing award indeed! I'll be sure to refer you for one. Maybe even an honorary doctorate at my alma mater.

Yes I can read very well - can you?

> ... by storing them in the corresponding uint

https://github.com/ggml-org/llama.cpp/discussions/15095

I think you're trying to imply you're inventing something new and racket enables you to explore... But what I read (as someone with a PhD in deep learning that has worked on sparsity) is you actually don't know the prior art and you're using racket as an excuse to reinvent a whole bunch of stuff that already exists in plenty of mature libraries in more mundane languages (including python/pytorch). Which is of course fine for personal growth but please don't oversell racket as a "superpower" - to wit I can manipulate any part of my stack too because it's all written in cpp.

you seem to completely misunderstand XY: it's not someone giving you the right solution to your problem which you aren't capable of arriving at yourself. it's someone telling you the problem you're having isn't the one you should be solving. it happens very frequently that some arrogant person is 100% certain X problem isn't possible, or isn't really happening, or isn't really the source of issues and they try to gaslight you into believing you've made a mistake in your reasoning and you should solve problem Y instead. you know... kind of like how you're doing right now...

> 3. Figurative Usage ("Taking at face value")When used in everyday language as a phrase, "taking something at face value" means accepting a statement, situation, or person exactly as they appear or are presented, without digging deeper for hidden meanings, motives, or questioning their authenticity

...

not sure what version of the english language you're using but in colloquial english "taking something at face value" means having a good faith interpretation.

you sure you're not the one wasting people's time by demanding they convince you of something you don't have any need to be convinced of - like did you know that just answering a question at face value is a completely plausible option?

Edit: this is why tech people are insufferable socially. In any other walk of life assuming you know more than someone is a manifestly obvious faux pas.