Quekid5

67 ms·

421.
by Quekid5 4y ago
Not the person you replied to, but... Everything is extremely hype-driven -- it turns out that "cannot confirm X" isn't very compelling for journals, etc. etc. or even the news cycle. Journals, etc. thrive on exciting new f
422.
by Quekid5 4y ago
Absolutely. Peer review causes peer pressure. Ofc, it depends heavily on how big one's 'niche' is, but...
423.
by Quekid5 4y ago
Type erasure is interesting. It turns out that not doing type erasure (combined with instanceOf-like things, like pattern matches on type parameters) breaks parametricity. Parametricity is a very powerful reasoning tool. Of course, type e
424.
by Quekid5 4y ago
I'm not 100% sure, actually, but IIRC there is an automatic insertion of 'yield points' into ordinary chunks of Haskell code, so, yes, it will yield automatically even if CPU-bound. Regardless, it's never been a problem
425.
by Quekid5 4y ago
I guess I should have specified that I was being a bit tongue in cheek. I do believe Write-Once was actually a thing with the banking mainframe I was acquainted with in my youth. It wasn't a CD-R thing, it was just an IBM thing which e
426.
by Quekid5 4y ago
Write-once physical storage?
427.
by Quekid5 4y ago
Exactly. Microsoft stock is basically fungible whereas houses and most other real-world property very much are not.
428.
by Quekid5 4y ago
The type of thing Loom is doing has been working great in e.g. the Haskell runtime for decades at this point.
429.
by Quekid5 4y ago
Yeah, there are rare exceptions to The Rule.
430.
by Quekid5 4y ago
And the response to that: https://dwheeler.com/trusting-trust/
431.
by Quekid5 4y ago
Oh, for sure.
432.
by Quekid5 4y ago
It's definitely an interesting question, but a minor nit about your comment: evolution is not really about the origin of the universe, just the origin of species. So it feels a bit out of place to state that Catholics have no problem w
433.
by Quekid5 5y ago
This is why I usually just use a temporary directory and do a quick git init . git add . git commit -m "wip" ... and proceed from there. So many ways to screw up ad hoc data processing using shell and the above ca
434.
by Quekid5 5y ago
If you're going to pick a "counterexample" just say unsafePerformIO, or the aptly named accursedUnutterablePerformIO[0]. (There are quite a few variants.) Everybody knows that there are escape hatches because they are actua
435.
by Quekid5 5y ago
Copilot is used for hard real time systems. Now, Copilot is probably more specialized than even kernel dev, but AFAICT there's not really any hard barrier there. "Just" a question of effort.
436.
by Quekid5 5y ago
I suspect you already know this, but other readers might be interested to know that in Haskell you can also use the ST monad which can do local (actual) mutation which is guaranteed to not escape the function's scope. (Of course you ca
437.
by Quekid5 5y ago
For better or worse Linux doesn't break userland.
438.
by Quekid5 5y ago
Well, as a disinterested observer, I think it was the > Except equality never meant... ... opening to your comment which immediately makes you look like you're being antagonistic. ("except", and "never" probably
439.
by Quekid5 5y ago
Yes. This is an inevitable consequence of Hyrum's Law[0]. It's been observed before but I find Hyrum's Law a very good and concise summary of the problem. [0] https://www.hyrumslaw.com/
440.
by Quekid5 5y ago
I'm guessing that they're talking about -Werror. (Which should never be specified in the build config you distribute, but is fine for tightly controlled environments like your DEV and CI environments.)
441.
by Quekid5 5y ago
(This is a bit of a tangent, apologies.) > fork(2) makes a lot more sense when you realize its heritage. I think it only makes sense when you consider its heritage. It has ALL the wrong defaults for what it's almost always used fo
442.
by Quekid5 5y ago
(Apologies about reordering your statements slightly.) > There's a reason practitioners are blinded in a double blind trial. Well, yes. That's to avoid experimental bias by the experimenters themselves. > You can say "t
443.
by Quekid5 5y ago
... but wasn't the OP saying the *claims* (specifically) were bullshit? That's what I'm reading in the OP comment now, but perhaps it was edited.
444.
by Quekid5 5y ago
I'm not disagreeing that it's a straw man, but... some people do carry all their net worth in cash everywhere they go. Not anyone with any substantial wealth, ofc. But I thought it was worth saying out loud.
445.
by Quekid5 5y ago
The default is 'disbelief', yes. At least with grand claims and when no clear plausible mechanism of action, etc. etc. is proposed. As to whether 'bullshit' is justified, I dunno. I just see that as being a bit blunt phr
446.
by Quekid5 5y ago
Forget "addressing". Can we please start with a definition which a substantial number of people can agree to?
447.
by Quekid5 5y ago
Very interesting. As far as I understand it, lengthy sentences don't work -- the likelihood of getting caught does. (I mean in a statistical sense. But I might have read this before the replication crisis, so caveat lector.) ... but al
448.
by Quekid5 5y ago
Understandable, after all you have no choice but to act as if you have free will. Nor do I. (Paraphrased from a Christopher Hitchens quote.) ... but of course that gets us no closer to a definition. If someone can come up with a sensible d
449.
by Quekid5 5y ago
I think you took the wrong message from my message. I was saying that the Haskell people were unapologetic (and obviously tongue-in-cheek)... and that one perhaps shouldn't expect massive commercial success when the people in charge ob
450.
by Quekid5 5y ago
Haskell's slogan was "avoid (success at all cost)", so it's hardly surprising that it's been considered niche since its inception. It's seen adoption among at least a couple of large companies: Standard Charter

More ›