agalunar

8 ms·

31.
by agalunar 3y ago
365·243 ought to be 365·2425 exactly: Per 400 years, there is one leap day every 4 years (100 leap days), except when the year is divisible by 100 (so we overcounted by 4 and there are 100 – 4 = 96 leap days), except when the year is divi
32.
by agalunar 3y ago
I've never heard "texture" used this way, although that's not saying much. My personal opinion would be that it's not the right word. I have heard the term “color” used in typography to describe the balance of posit
33.
by agalunar 3y ago
Impossible given that number of neurons. It's perhaps not terribly surprising that it becomes possible with unlimited width or depth (or an arbitrarily complex activation function). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
34.
by agalunar 3y ago
I like to read it as "the featured article".
35.
by agalunar 3y ago
Also, I forgot to say: thanks for the submission!
36.
by agalunar 3y ago
Small note for the author: I was a bit confused at first by the use of "Nix-based" to mean POSIX-compliant [1] since Nix is the name of a package manager that NixOS is based on. I've only seen "*nix" to refer to Uni
37.
by agalunar 3y ago
Perhaps they had in mind "bane".
38.
by agalunar 3y ago
That's not the only way to interpret that passage (it's not how I interpreted the passage, in any case). There's no contradiction in saying "pop music is also popular and so our station also has programs that play pop mu
39.
by agalunar 3y ago
> The assumption that music the author doesn't like must be a – likely political – statement is, let's just say, revealing and itself highly political. Where are you getting this impression from? I just went back through the pi
40.
by agalunar 3y ago
That's very impressive! I desperately wish more people did their production work like you do. I genuinely can believe that Rust, Carbon, &c wouldn't make much of a difference for you. But for others who don't exercise the
41.
by agalunar 3y ago
> You are reading way more into his comment than I think was intended or implied. You're likely correct (I'm unable to find the original context of the comment), but it's rarely employed with its original context. Indeed,
42.
by agalunar 3y ago
I immensely enjoyed reading this. Thanks for sharing!
43.
by agalunar 3y ago
ah, to be clear, I'm not saying I disliked the parent comment by rr808! I was just tangentially ruminating on the quotation.
44.
by agalunar 3y ago
I've never really liked that quote. It's just a way of saying that nothing's perfect, and of course nothing is perfect, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try to improve them. The quote has always struck me as defe
45.
by agalunar 3y ago
> A block of memory cannot be read as an array of simd types sometimes and scalar types otherwise. As far as I can tell, it is currently the case that, using raw pointers, this is not actually undefined behavior (but I never entirely
46.
by agalunar 3y ago
We may simply differ here – for me, types are as real as objects. Or, perhaps more accurately, types are as illusory as objects ^_^
47.
by agalunar 3y ago
I think I would completely agree for you if it were a definition and not a type annotation! That is, "x: 5" instead of "x = 5" (or "x ← 5", &c) looks fine to my eyes. And of course, that's how values f
48.
by agalunar 3y ago
To clarify, I'm not arguing for "X x" over "x : X", I'm arguing for "x : X" over "x: X". If you had to write it in the form "a: b", however, "X: x" would make as much o
49.
by agalunar 3y ago
That doesn't match my experience with the usage of a labeling or prefatory colon (continuing with my ad hoc terminology). I'd read it as Here's an x: X. – which is nonsensical (the type X is not an example of the instance x;
50.
by agalunar 3y ago
Ah, I should've been more explicit that I was referring to programming language syntax. For example, this is unfortunately not the convention in Python, Rust, Swift, or TypeScript.
51.
by agalunar 3y ago
This seems like maybe a right place to evangelize [1] the only hill I've decided to die on: the formatting of type annotations that use a colon in their syntax. Specifically, there should be an equal amount of space on both sides of th
52.
by agalunar 3y ago
I really like this – thank you for writing it! A related (but not quite the same, I think) idea is that people should not have to bend to technology; technology should bend to people. It can be difficult to design for people, though. People
53.
by agalunar 3y ago
Calling us "pattern recognition machines capable of abstract representation" I think is correct, but is (rather) broad description of what we can do and not really a comment on how our minds work. Sure, from personal observation,
54.
by agalunar 3y ago
In case the author happens to see this thread – there seems to be a missing less-than sign: str::from_utf8( as Deref>::deref(&self.0)) Thanks for the article! ^_^
55.
by agalunar 3y ago
It looks like it's okay even technically! From a section marked "(since C99)": > If the member used to access the contents of a union is not the same as the member last used to store a value, the object representation of t
56.
by agalunar 3y ago
But all rights are made up – they're simply things that we think are really important to provide each other. I can only assume that when a person says "housing is a human right", they mean "housing is something important
57.
by agalunar 3y ago
All rights are made up, of course – nature grants us nothing, we grant ourselves rights. That said, it's hard for me to tell if you're not reacting in bad faith. Every person needs a place to live,† but they obviously don't n
58.
by agalunar 3y ago
You seem to be using "the hard problem of consciousness" to mean something different than I've always taken it to mean. I fully believe I am just a machine; the question is why there are qualia happening. Wipe my memory, chan
59.
by agalunar 3y ago
SPSA, if memory serves. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simultaneous_perturbation_st...
60.
by agalunar 3y ago
Thank you so much for your thoughtful response! We may disagree from the very start (with the premise you wrote) depending on what you meant, > Good and bad are judgments based on our evolutionary goal of survival eventually culminating

More ›