Quekid5

9 ms·

121.
by Quekid5 2y ago
You're not wrong, but is at the very least weird that a specialization doesn't conform to the concept that the general template does. Something which proper parametricity would have avoided -- if it were available. (The Hyster
122.
by Quekid5 2y ago
> Consider for example std::vector<bool>: implementations can be made that actually store a single bit per vector element (instead of how a bool normally is represented using an int or char). Your example is considered a misfeature
123.
by Quekid5 2y ago
It's expensive, no doubt... but it's also a VERY good and thorough treatment of the topic. (Btw, not that much has changed since 2002 in terms of the fundamentals of type systems. Certainly some stuff at the edges, but this book
124.
by Quekid5 2y ago
Oh, it absolutely is. AFAICT it's universal for "experts" (whatever that means) in any given field. (Self-referentially: Even for me... So take what I said above with a grain of salt, but I'm pretty sure this has solid r
125.
by Quekid5 2y ago
No. The only thing needed is Capabilities and we're done.
126.
by Quekid5 2y ago
I don't disagree with this characterization of studying physics, but there is a very noticeable tendency for physicists to expect their expertise to transfer to fields they are very definitely not experts in. (Not exclusive to phys
127.
by Quekid5 2y ago
Oh, I see... I think I was thinking about reflection in an entirely different way. When I think Reflection I think mostly static and generative reflection -- so you can introspect on data structures, derive [whatever] from that, generat
128.
by Quekid5 2y ago
Yeah, I forgot to mention that in my edit. The area relation throws up so many weird things about what information and space even is, etc.
129.
by Quekid5 2y ago
... and how would you decode that information? Heisenberg sends his regards. EDIT: ... and of course the point isn't that it's 1:1 wrt. bits and atoms, but I think the point was that there is obviously some maximum information d
130.
by Quekid5 2y ago
It's the shortest path to Hyrum's Law, certainly. > And obviously with or without reflection anyone can already modify the private field. This bit, I don't understand. Wouldn't that require unsafe? EDIT: Just to say:
131.
by Quekid5 2y ago
Ignoring [the AIDS epidemic] is putting it mildly, IMO
132.
by Quekid5 2y ago
That's fine and well, but AFAICT the only alternative is it being non-deterministic... which doesn't seem very satisfactory either.
133.
by Quekid5 2y ago
> However, if we can't know whether the universe is truly deterministic, then modeling is a pragmatic exercise in control (or management). What would you say if we can predict the outcome of an experiment with 51% probability. Is th
134.
by Quekid5 2y ago
> If someone believes the world is purely mechanistic, then it follows that a sufficiently large computing machine can model the world Is this controversial in some way? The problem is that to simulate a universe you need a bigger univer
135.
by Quekid5 2y ago
?
136.
by Quekid5 2y ago
... which is why I had that little bit at the end there.
137.
by Quekid5 2y ago
It's probably because fragmentation isn't a safety issue. (In the sense of 'safety' being discussed here.)
138.
by Quekid5 2y ago
You're not wrong... but for different reasons :)
139.
by Quekid5 2y ago
Probably from ML/Haskell, but yes :)
140.
by Quekid5 2y ago
The whole switch/pattern matching thing is a true abomination borne from: Well, things in statement position can't be expressions (or however Pythonistas might phrase it), so clearly switch/pattern matching must be a statem
141.
by Quekid5 2y ago
I'm having such a hard time figuring out whether this is satirical. (My guess: It is.)
142.
by Quekid5 2y ago
Tig does about 10% of what Magit does, alas. EDIT: It does the things it does well, but it's not even close.
143.
by Quekid5 2y ago
Prime example of a non-sequitur
144.
by Quekid5 2y ago
Magnus is literally ~50 ELO above Gukesh. Do you have any concept of how much that is at the very top? EDIT: Just to preempt: This is not say that Gukesh doesn't have a very bright future or couldn't surpass Magnus' top r
145.
by Quekid5 2y ago
True, but in that case you knew it had to be CGI because Kennedy didn't talk to Tom Hanks in any capacity.
146.
by Quekid5 2y ago
> A precondition is likely that one has mainly watched CGI-heavy movies for most of one's life. Indeed, a great (if counterintuitive) example of this is The Wolf of Wall Street. I bet a lot of people would be surprised at just how m
147.
by Quekid5 2y ago
> Given a sufficiently bad compiler bug anything is possible, ... I can't help but wonder about the consteval/constexpr machinery in the various C++ compilers... It'd be interesting to see how much adversarial input has be
148.
by Quekid5 2y ago
Ah, yes... "just". I think you're seriously underestimating the difficulty here.
149.
by Quekid5 2y ago
Judging by a sibling comment to yours... it seems a lot of people don't think of supporting blind users. (I'm not blind, at least yet, but it is a pretty sad state of affairs.)
150.
by Quekid5 2y ago
> Yet one still can produce great amount of working software without knowing how indexes are stored on disk. I agree... up to a point. Most software will likely be replaced/obsolete before it even reaches a scale where indexes even

More ›