Twisol

18 ms·

151.
by Twisol 3y ago
They almost shuttered in 2002, it looks like! https://lwn.net/Articles/5409/
152.
by Twisol 3y ago
Hosted by good ol' Dirk! (For those not in the know, this is an in-joke originating at least from the Hello Internet podcast, with CGP Grey and Brady Haran. "Veritasium" is, indeed, the correct spelling.)
153.
by Twisol 3y ago
I'm a bit wary of offering a logical explanation for something that is less reasoned and more habitual/cultural, but if I had to, I'd say corporations present a single unified posture that is not necessarily reflective of the
154.
by Twisol 3y ago
On introspection, I think I would/have used both "it" and singular (agender) "they" for corporations.
155.
by Twisol 3y ago
I've heard some people (I think mostly in the UK?) treat corporation names as count nouns, as in "Jagex are" (or "Facebook are") rather than "Jagex is". I can see how this makes sense if you think of a c
156.
by Twisol 3y ago
Unfortunately, I have absolutely heard people say "this datum" and "these data" -- admittedly not "three data", but certainly in the style of a count noun, and not in the style of a mass noun. If they used it a
157.
by Twisol 3y ago
Even in English, depending on who you talk to, "data" might be either count or mass. (I am solidly in the mass camp.)
158.
by Twisol 3y ago
That's a good question -- this result is arguably the one that made Georg Cantor a legend. (It's called Cantor's theorem, after all!) I had to refresh myself on the proof, but it boils down to a less obvious kind of "dia
159.
by Twisol 3y ago
Not in terms of cardinality, at least. Consider the set of natural numbers {0, 1, 2, ...}. This set is clearly of infinite size. If we remove 0, then we have a set {1, 2, ...} with, in principle, one less element than we started with -- yet
160.
by Twisol 3y ago
> There are only two types of infinities: countable and uncountable. That's not true, either. For any infinite set S, the powerset 2^S is also infinite, but there is no injection from 2^S to S. Therefore, the cardinality of 2^S is b
161.
by Twisol 4y ago
FWIW, at this point, the initialism has kind of become the name. It's like POSIX -- I doubt a lot of people know what it stands for, but it doesn't matter, because there's only one POSIX and it's the portable operating s
162.
by Twisol 4y ago
> Very dismissive statement that misses the person's point. I read it as acknowledging that you shouldn't feel like you have to spend time on things that provide you no value. That seems to directly acknowledge the point I took
163.
by Twisol 4y ago
> I got confused by the infix definition of "~>*". Aaah, I'm sorry -- I thought you meant the theorem body -- the proof itself -- was hard to parse. (Which it also is!) Yes, custom infix operators are just one of many n
164.
by Twisol 4y ago
Scott Wlaschin's "F# For Fun and Profit" website is a great resource for strongly-typed (yes) data modeling with sum types as a fundamental tool. https://fsharpforfunandprofit.com/series/designing-with-ty
165.
by Twisol 4y ago
> My intuition is: evaluating in Lean and embedding the result in the toy language is identical to big step evaluation in the toy language. Yes, I think that's right. > But I can't parse the theorem. I think there's a b
166.
by Twisol 4y ago
I agree most of the time, but it can make sense in certain contexts. One common example is comparison methods: if (x1 < y1) return true; if (x2 < y2) return true; if (x3 < y3) return true; return false; I wouldn&
167.
by Twisol 4y ago
I didn't find the playerbase very hostile at all -- although I wasn't involved in most PVP combat activities, which IIRC is also where most of the "pay to win" is focused. (never did save up enough to buy wings, though)
168.
by Twisol 4y ago
> this is the same country that has the national power grid introduce "hum" (or whatever it is technically callled) in the signal so that a time reference can be decoded from it. I don't think that's intentionally int
169.
by Twisol 4y ago
Cook! If you're who I think you are, I bet you don't recognize me under this name, but hi from an old b'crat :)
170.
by Twisol 4y ago
The MOV-only CPU [1, 2] is probably about as close to this as you can get. If you think about it, every structured programming affordance is sugar for writing a state machine. MOV-only pushes all control flow into a state machine, and does
171.
by Twisol 4y ago
Is this another way of putting what you're saying? In functional programming, we think of computation as reducing an expression; a computation is complete when it can't be reduced anymore. In imperative programming, we think of co
172.
by Twisol 4y ago
State is made of data. The difference is that state is data together with a persistent identity (morally, a location), and the data associated with that identity may change over time.
173.
by Twisol 4y ago
I was starstruck enough just sitting next to Daniel Friedman ^_^;
174.
by Twisol 4y ago
Good question. "Do notation" is sometimes referred to as "the programmable semicolon", because how you go from one statement to the next depends on which monad you're in. (In the List example, the assignment `x <
175.
by Twisol 4y ago
Not exactly (although maybe you could implement that pattern with the right choice of monad). do x <- [1, 2, 3] y <- [4, 5, 6] return (x + y) -- [5, 6, 7, 6, 7, 8, 7, 8, 9] Here we have a series of ass
176.
by Twisol 4y ago
As a complement to my other reply to you, I'll note that I developed a simulation system in Java (a very common language), and strove to keep it small, avoid complexity, and generally make it approachable -- but for a long time I remai
177.
by Twisol 4y ago
I was referring to the discipline as a whole, not scouting at the granularity of a single team. Also refer to take three: working in an industrial team is not a prerequisite for an application of programming to be valid. But to your very sp
178.
by Twisol 4y ago
Take one: We need people moving together just as much as we need scouts who can push ahead and find the best paths for the rest of us. Take two: Working in the best fit for your brain is not incompatible with working with others -- enough c
179.
by Twisol 4y ago
I remember this talk! The speaker recommended doing this with the tax code because it was one of the most mechanical -- very little inherent ambiguity, there's just a lot of surface area to cover, so it's a great candidate for act
180.
by Twisol 4y ago
> Perhaps this is just my autism speaking, but am I the only one who gets completely freaked out by sentences like the above? Hi, fellow autist here. Yes, it feels like my brain hits some speedbumps with that particular pronoun. I wouldn

More ›