axlprose

19 ms·

91.
by axlprose 10y ago
Until theorem proving is as easy in a programming language as it is in plain old math (last I checked, dependently typed languages were still verbose and cumbersome for this purpose), then Yes, math will still be special because it is the p
92.
by axlprose 10y ago
As a shy introvert myself whose even been suicidal in years past, I'm thoroughly aware of the obstacles it presents. However, since becoming a personality researcher, my views have shifted to viewing it more as a net positive for a lot
93.
by axlprose 10y ago
Perhaps not in that case, but regardless, this is the kind of thing should be designed in deliberately as a feature (with an option to bypass it under special circumstances), rather than some accidental/arbitrary technical limitation
94.
by axlprose 10y ago
> what is mathematically possible and impossible is entirely our own invention That's actually quite a controversial statement that many professional mathematicians might beg to differ with. Viewing mathematical results and axioms
95.
by axlprose 10y ago
> NO MORE TRYING TO REWRITE THINGS IN HASKELL. JUST. GET. SHIT. DONE. I chuckled at that, because while it makes for a good joke, I've learned from experience that writing stuff in less mainstream languages like Haskell is probabl
96.
by axlprose 10y ago
One way to view it, is that all other fields with the word "algebra" in them, are applications of Abstract Algebra. That includes Linear Algebra, Relational Algebra, and Boolean Algebra, which you might already be familiar with
97.
by axlprose 10y ago
> Java libraries are complex because Java is inexpressive? Not because the libraries attempt to do everything for every situation? Why do these reasons have to be mutually exclusive? Furthermore, your second point relies on every sing
98.
by axlprose 10y ago
Oh it almost certainly is the main reason why it isn't popular. Then again, that is also the same reason why abstract mathematics in general isn't popular. Saying the experience is "not transferable" is looking at it the
99.
by axlprose 10y ago
> you can't learn Haskell in a lecture unless you already knew SML or OCaml, and even then probably not. I just want to emphasize this part because it's really quite true, as someone who came to it from F#/OCaml. The thi
100.
by axlprose 10y ago
> Don't things get messy and ugly as the pure world of Haskell is being tainted? The word "pure" gets thrown around with regards to haskell, but most of its draw and apparent purity , isn't the same as the technica
101.
by axlprose 10y ago
is it really that important for a non-emacs client to support 100% of org's features? You can still always open complicated org files in emacs if you really need to, but that shouldn't stop people from attempting to develop a li
102.
by axlprose 10y ago
> I would not bother reading anything written by that author again. I have to question just how much you've read from Uncle Bob to begin with, because he's by no means the NULL fan you're making him out to be. He's a
103.
by axlprose 10y ago
There are already quite a few replacements around that are better in my opinion (like inoreader), but people seem to like complaining about Reader as if Google killed off their firstborn for some reason.
104.
by axlprose 10y ago
> you were probably experiencing the effects of improper dosing (as well as - I'm assuming - different means of ingestion) For the dosing, you're probably right, since I didn't have a milligram scale at the time, but I t
105.
by axlprose 10y ago
as someone who's prescribed amphetamine (i.e. adderall) for [inattentive] ADHD, and have also tried meth -amphetamine, I just want to point out that those are two very different drugs as far as effects and potency go. Methamphetam
106.
by axlprose 10y ago
> You have to get over yourself about the tools not being elegant https://www.commitstrip.com/en/2016/07/11/a-bad-workman-blam... Jokes aside, the history of mathematics is a pretty worthwhile subje
107.
by axlprose 10y ago
abstraction isn't inherently a bad thing, it's what gives us the tools to reason at a higher level. It's leaky abstractions that are the problem. Proper abstractions are supposed to compress large bundles of information int
108.
by axlprose 10y ago
I don't think you can gauge that kind of thing very accurately by how people "look". Having occasionally meet a few people that would fall into the "1%" category myself, I can safely say that none of them "look
109.
by axlprose 10y ago
> But hardly higher -- there are also some other talents needed I'm not going to deny the presence of some built-in preferences for formalized thinking among some subset of the general population, however the cognitive resources a
110.
by axlprose 10y ago
> we are animals, somewhat predictable, not that unique. Oh I agree completely, didn't mean to give the impression I advocate the "special snowflake" view of the world either. My apologies! My entire field of research is
111.
by axlprose 10y ago
Yes, but unfortunately people tend to make a lot of critical decisions based around what they interpret other people's motives to be; leaving out that bit of human behavior from the equation can be a big deal. One ceo may may look at
112.
by axlprose 10y ago
As someone who actively works researching personality psychology, I can fully attest to this. There actually seems to be somewhat of a Dunning-Kruger like effect when it comes to people evaluation skills. Generally, those who appear the mos
113.
by axlprose 10y ago
Saying "nearly everyone" was wrong and blindsided by it is a bit of a stretch. Not everyone that saw it coming profited from it big like the now fabled protagonists in The Big Short. But to people who chose to pay attention to it
114.
by axlprose 10y ago
> the good ideas are also the most dangerous, since there is real danger of falling in love with them and applying them to everything Like how math was a good idea that was applied everywhere from physics to modern medicine and archite
115.
by axlprose 10y ago
This is a pretty common sentiment, but I think it underplays just how much phenomena logic and factual observation can analyze/explain, and in turn we easily forget and underestimate just how much it can truly accomplish[0]. I mean, li
116.
by axlprose 10y ago
And the response was clearly questioning the argument put in favor of that point, thus making the point itself questionable. It's a strange world when a startup that was just founded 2 years ago and is steadily growing [0][1][2], is co
117.
by axlprose 10y ago
I hear this argument a lot too, but when you think about it, what would pull the original authors of those rarer libs to use the languages they chose in the first place? R is clearly geared and marketed towards statisticians, which have in
118.
by axlprose 10y ago
I would argue that it's less about the libraries, and more about platforms and branding. Judging languages on their popular libraries can be a bit misleading, since not all languages need libraries for some of the stuff other languag
119.
by axlprose 10y ago
> Since you mentioned CoffeeScript, Elm seems like a particularly relevant example of something that came out of the Haskell community and which compiles to JavaScript. Let's not forget Purescript[0], which is looking to be the s
120.
by axlprose 10y ago
> Don't be envious of the other engineering disciplines. They envy us. They shouldn't. Our work is deplorable. Any non-trivial internal codebase would probably give any mathematically savvy engineer nightmares for days. If ou

More ›