Blikkentrekker

6 ms·

1.
by Blikkentrekker 26d ago
Yes people have to service the use case of a single person. All sorts of models exist that are designed to be ran at home. Yes, you need a relatively beefy graphics card for it but if your machine can handle the latest video games at good
2.
by Blikkentrekker 26d ago
That they do it is just concerning to me in that it says that home-ran models just aren't good enough. Surely researchers like this have the processing power to run them at home, they just don't have the processing power to train
3.
by Blikkentrekker 26d ago
Yes it will. But that doesn't mean that “making students read” doesn't arouse a very different impression. “Making students do homework.” does not imply “Making it free for them to do it.”.
4.
by Blikkentrekker 27d ago
Yeah, I got that from the abstract too. I just don't understand where the “making teenagers read newspapers” angle comes from.
5.
by Blikkentrekker 27d ago
I don't understand. The way I read the text one group was simply given a free subscription no? They weren't made to read anything?
6.
by Blikkentrekker 3mo ago
It's really not clear whether Rust does it or not and it just sidesteps the issues by calling them “structs” and “enums” but fields can be private of course. Scheme Structs are rather interesting, when you define a struct the language
7.
by Blikkentrekker 3mo ago
> After the dust has settled, it seems like the most valuable parts of OOP are private data, convenience (no need to repeat the class name in a method call), good fit for some domains, and interfaces. Kay also considers CLOS and relate
8.
by Blikkentrekker 3mo ago
There is a general culture that one sometimes sees which treats anything related to Japan as highly remarkable. Ancient Japanese swords can literally cut through diamond like butter by being folded over 1 000 times after all.
9.
by Blikkentrekker 4mo ago
The issue is that these functions in Lisps are variadic and can accept more arguments than one. `map`, and `zipwidth` in lisps are actually the same function.
10.
by Blikkentrekker 4mo ago
I feel languages should just have some kind of sugar or operator for this, in fact in Ocaml the |> operator exists where <exp> |> <exp2> <exp2>(<exp>) Are just one and the same For a variadic languag
11.
by Blikkentrekker 4mo ago
That JSON prohibits trailing commata makes it an absolute pain to work with in practice. I also like how in Haskell: something = { element , element1 , element2 , element3 } Is an actually idiomatic way to d
12.
by Blikkentrekker 4mo ago
> It's tough to answer because you want to hedge for both an AI enthused employer and an AI hesitant employer That this doesn't have a clear and obvious answer one can expect shows how the issue is politics, not strategy. Whe
13.
by Blikkentrekker 6mo ago
I think even the biggest hard drugs should be legal, again just because “people enjoy it”. I'm fine with taxing it more in subsidized single-payer healthcare systems though but I also feel that should be done more consistently. I for i
14.
by Blikkentrekker 6mo ago
The same can be said for anything that's dangerous. In fact, one can make this argument simply for people who elect to study some field that isn't really very financially viable.
15.
by Blikkentrekker 6mo ago
The thing with “harmful to society” is that in practice it's so arbitrarily decided what is “harmful” and in practice it comes down more to “arbitrary moralist reactions”.
16.
by Blikkentrekker 6mo ago
Many dangerous things are legal simply because “people enjoy doing them” though. People die during parachuting and climbing mount everest. What's the upside really beyond “People enjoy doing it and it's their own life.”?
17.
by Blikkentrekker 6mo ago
> Every function takes one argument - a list. That's one way to look at it, but the major difference is that one can also pass a a list as one argument, as in `(f x y z)` and `(f (list x y z)` are not the same. The thing with tupl
18.
by Blikkentrekker 7mo ago
That person obviously did not want to be at risk for legal issues from Blizzard by publhsing it though. I personally wouldn't take that risk either.
19.
by Blikkentrekker 7mo ago
I always felt Monads were an utterly disgusting hack that was otherwise quite practical though. It didn't feel like mathematical beauty at all to me but like a hack to fool to the optimizer to not sequence out of events.
20.
by Blikkentrekker 7mo ago
> Simplicity: Every function takes exactly one input and produces exactly one output. No exceptions. If you didn’t care about the input or output, you used Unit, and we made special syntax for that. Seems like a disaster to use s-expre
21.
by Blikkentrekker 7mo ago
In SML I believe. I never used SML but from how I understand it in ML all functions technically take one argument, which may be a tuple. In Haskell and Ocaml, all functions technically take one argument and just return a function that takes
22.
by Blikkentrekker 7mo ago
Well, it's otherwise “free” to read the article so I guess this is how one “pays” in the end. I wonder how this works on mobile data though which is significantlym more expensive than home network data.
23.
by Blikkentrekker 7mo ago
The issue is that it's a special case that acknowledges where there are cases where the indentation level it logically requires isn't what programmers find pleasant, there are many more, that just don't have that special case
24.
by Blikkentrekker 7mo ago
That's just because most languages go by braces and have optional intendation that is just ignored by the compiler. I'd reckon that in a language where stuff is done by indentation but optional braces exist that are just ignored s
25.
by Blikkentrekker 7mo ago
Functional hardly matters Haskell has plenty of indentation which is by the way interchangeable with `{ ... }`, one can use both at one's own pleasure and it's needed for many things. Also, famously `do { x ; y ; z }` is just synt
26.
by Blikkentrekker 7mo ago
I like how Haskell does it. One can do both but not mix, as in either indent or use `{ ... }`.
27.
by Blikkentrekker 7mo ago
The issue is that you find you very often want to break those roles. Python basically has `elif` because `else if` would make each branch nest one level deeper which isn't what one wants, except Python uses exceptions for flow control
28.
by Blikkentrekker 7mo ago
> Indeed. And what many seem to fail to notice is that at it's core it's exactly the same mistake being made all over again. A mistake that I've seen so many times over and over again, increasingly commonly in recent year
29.
by Blikkentrekker 7mo ago
Yes, that, or the “Use case for <extremely useful and obvious thing>?” memes. Ebassi once got father angry at me after finding out that I did not run Polkit or a system dbus on my system and alledged that I must not know what they do
30.
by Blikkentrekker 7mo ago
Well that's the issue with free software isn't it. In properitary software people work on what their boss tells them to work on which is decided by market research based on what people want. Others said in this thread that Wayland

More ›