Chinjut

34 ms·

451.
by Chinjut 10y ago
Homotopy Type Theory axiomatizes weak omega groupoids; it gives you formal rules you can manipulate to reason about weak omega groupoids. This is exactly the same way, say, ZFC axiomatizes sets of sets of sets… "You're allowed to
452.
by Chinjut 10y ago
"waldoed"?
453.
by Chinjut 10y ago
I find Harvey Friedman has made the FOM mailing list completely unreadable. AND incredibly hostile to anyone with any sympathy to category theory, type theory, or the like. See https://plus.google.com/+CodyRoux/posts&#x
454.
by Chinjut 10y ago
There is a corollary of this which is underappreciated as well: your employer (the whole company, not just HR) is not your friend. No matter how friendly or helpful they seem, their job is not to protect you. It's to protect themselv
455.
by Chinjut 10y ago
It may be short-sighted, but, frankly, most people and organizations in the world act in most contexts in short-sighted pursuit of their goals. Foolish, sure, and unethical in the case of HR departments, but nonetheless, the behavior one ca
456.
by Chinjut 10y ago
They're not the American Bill of Rights Union. They have a conception of what "civil liberties" amounts to which many sympathize with, and they fight for that. If you think they do good work in that arena, great! If you think
457.
by Chinjut 10y ago
Every proof is like this [except in the particular context of 100% formalized proof systems agreed upon in all details beforehand, but that is a niche context, not the default for mathematical discussion or thought]. I spelt out the parts o
458.
by Chinjut 10y ago
I don't know what does or doesn't get into what, but the argument for the shortest path from A to B being the direct straight-line path is conceptually simple, like so: let f(t) be a curve which passes from A to B. We can split f(
459.
by Chinjut 10y ago
C is such a boondoggle of a language... We're condemned to forever explore its every weird nook and cranny for historical reasons, rather than because it is the cleanest, best approach to things possible.
460.
by Chinjut 10y ago
What is so wrong with talking about the death of a beloved musician? (Did he kill your childhood pet or something?)
461.
by Chinjut 10y ago
Everything everyone has ever made will eventually be forgotten, Ozymandias style. But George Michael has been, for decades, far, far better known than most of the people, startups, etc., that are discussed on Hacker News. Which doesn't
462.
by Chinjut 10y ago
Why would acting styles have to adapt to the frames per second? And how?
463.
by Chinjut 10y ago
Ah, yeah, that was it. Shouldn't have even had to ask.
464.
by Chinjut 10y ago
Can someone explain to me why there are two [-] [-] links? Is this some bug in my browser (perhaps related to using the hckr news plugin to highlight recent comments?)
465.
by Chinjut 10y ago
It's not clear that conclusion follows. Perhaps he understands copyright but chooses not to respect it?
466.
by Chinjut 10y ago
The people barely scraping by with no rest to look forward to may have a word or two to say about the status quo.
467.
by Chinjut 10y ago
Everyone may have a word or two to say about every aspect of how society is run; such is democratic politics. But you speak as though the amount of money someone is construed as having is a physical quality intrinsic to them, instead of a s
468.
by Chinjut 10y ago
Right. Ideally, Social Security would be even stronger, but at any rate, it acts right now as a "safety net" which would be horrific to abandon. (Let's not forget the reasons we were led to institute it in the first place! Ah
469.
by Chinjut 10y ago
I may be reading too much into what you are getting at with your second question, but: What does it even mean to draw that distinction in this context? Our current state is already a forceful one (as would be any other distribution of claim
470.
by Chinjut 10y ago
Nah, screw that. We all deserve comfortable retirements, and we should fund it as a society. Wealth inequality being what it is, yes, the wealthy can afford to chip in for the well-being of the rest of us. Or rather, we can afford to redist
471.
by Chinjut 10y ago
Microsoft didn't create Haskell, though they did ultimately hire many of the movers and shakers who did. (I agree that Go is a horrific mediocrity in comparison.)
472.
by Chinjut 10y ago
In case anyone is unfamiliar with the author Philip Wadler, he went on to be a key figure in the design of Haskell.
473.
by Chinjut 10y ago
The dude was 91 years old. 91-year-olds have been dying every year since the start of things. It's hardly some new phenomenon 2016 created.
474.
by Chinjut 10y ago
Yes, Bob Harper is aware of, and intentionally discussing precisely, this. (The "Curry-Howard-Lambek" correspondence, if you like)
475.
by Chinjut 10y ago
They don't give inner products, but they do give norms. But inner products are, in some ways, more convenient than general norms, hence squared error as opposed to other things. It's not that squared error is necessarily what you
476.
by Chinjut 10y ago
There are certainly countries where healthcare is free to the patient at the point of delivery; countries where no one is ever refused healthcare for lack of ability to pay, or need ever consider such a thing. If your quibble is that it&#x2
477.
by Chinjut 10y ago
For what it's worth, it does bother me how much standard CS tooling and the mindset bred from it is stuck in the paradigm of exclusively textual user interfaces. Linear text has its advantages and value, of course, but, like, we know w
478.
by Chinjut 10y ago
As a mathematician/(ex?-)computer scientist whose area of research is category theory, let me ask: What makes category theory not seem like very good CS?
479.
by Chinjut 10y ago
All the handwringing over fake news on the Internet prompts within me two negative, dismissive reactions: The first is that this is just a convenient scapegoat to avoid examining the failures of the Democratic Party in this election cycle.
480.
by Chinjut 10y ago
The person willing to pay the most may not be the person who most desires it, considering the differing marginal utility of money across the vast spectrum of income/wealth inequality. Trump can buy on a lark what I would only shell out

More ›