fexl

34 ms·

271.
by fexl 15y ago
Ah, thanks for posting about my Fexl language. Although I'm the author of it, and somewhat fond of it, I must emphasize this caveat: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2717560 . Although lazy evaluation is quite amazing, in certain cir
272.
by fexl 15y ago
Also, although I've focused a lot on lazy functional programming languages lately ( http://fexl.com ), for my main scripting work I've been using simple token-based languages. Most of these languages are domain-specific (e.g to hedge fund
273.
by fexl 15y ago
I just now took a look at tinyvm and I find it very readable. It reminds me of my own C coding style.
274.
by fexl 15y ago
The author wrote: "I wrote code that correlated a short list in one record with a long list of values that resided in another record, summed values that matched between the two lists, and presented the result. ... It was all very clear and
275.
by fexl 15y ago
I understand that. I'm just saying that the original post drags in the concept of transcendental numbers, a key aspect of real number theory, and attempts to mash it into the real world where it doesn't fit. Recall what I said here: "In
276.
by fexl 15y ago
Keynes was making hay out of a disaster. The banks enabled a speculative boom, resulting in a massive mis-allocation of capital for many years. Then when the boom ended, they had mass unemployment. No surprise there. Keynes was wrong to
277.
by fexl 15y ago
You wrote: "this is not called monetization". Monetization is a technical term, and I won't quibble with you over that. However ... You wrote: "it was not a policy of the Fed." Yes, the whole phenomenon was baked into Fed policy even at
278.
by fexl 15y ago
Fantastic response, thanks. You wrote: "monetization ... what does that mean?" In a nutshell: at the time banks would lend money to people for the purpose of buying stocks and real estate, and as collateral for those loans, they would acc
279.
by fexl 15y ago
He writes a whole book to support those assertions, but I only had time to hit the high points here. I have no interest in getting all religious or dogmatic about gold, silver, bitcoin, US dollars, Euros, or any other form of money. My rea
280.
by fexl 15y ago
Sure, such as Walter Duranty, the famous admirer of Stalin. But I like to discuss specifics. I disagree with Walter Duranty and Stalin on many points, and I agree with George Robinson on many points. I'm willing to discuss all of these t
281.
by fexl 15y ago
You're probably right about the downvotes, but the article itself made an appeal to authority and majority (i.e. "many economists"), and I wanted to counter that with a specific exception, and I see no harm in citing him by name. On your ot
282.
by fexl 15y ago
Article says: "Many economists put at least part of the blame for the severity of the Depression on the strictures of the gold standard, as countries clung to gold and put off stimulus." Many economists disagree, for example George Robinso
283.
by fexl 15y ago
Right, and I'm sure you're aware of the Planck constant for energy quanta as well. That's the kind of thing that made me say that a base unit of length is "plausible". So although it's a fun thought experiment to think about strings that t
284.
by fexl 15y ago
Number theory relates because his question suggests that a transcendental length might be especially problematic. I don't think it is, because of the hard limits on our ability to measure physical phenomena. So it doesn't matter if we're t
285.
by fexl 15y ago
I was just taking the gambit and running with it. Certainly when you start zeroing in on the end of the string, things start to get very fuzzy indeed.
286.
by fexl 15y ago
Yeah I gotta think about that one. If we assume that there is some smallest discrete base unit of space (which I think is plausible), then all string lengths could only be some integer multiple of that base unit. Therefore length pi is ou
287.
by fexl 15y ago
Just as difficult a question: Is it possible for piece of string to be 2 units long? In the real world, you always run into limits on how finely you can measure things before you run into quandaries about number theory.
288.
by fexl 15y ago
I do this sort of thing a lot, not as a formalized utility but as a practice. For example I'll often do something like this: mv data ~/tmp/ cd ~/tmp/ rm -rf data At least when I'm in the tmp directory I can see that clearly on t
289.
by fexl 15y ago
You wrote: "I don't agree with your definition of government. If people agree peacefully to adhere to a set of rules, they have effectively formed a government, too." Now that's a good point isn't it. I'm so accustomed to people in governm
290.
by fexl 15y ago
You wrote: For example if you say in a free market people consent to respect their property rights, I would say these people form a "government" and have thus defined government rules. I define a government as a group of people who have
291.
by fexl 15y ago
Oh snap that's great. I'm buying something at Walmart at the next opportunity.
292.
by fexl 15y ago
You wrote: "I don't think you even bothered to consider what I wanted to say." I did consider what you had to say, and I addressed it directly. For example, you wrote "you have to propose some policies alongside your supposedly free market
293.
by fexl 15y ago
I didn't suggest that Bitcoin needs to contractually redeemable for something else. I only said that it isn't. And pointing out that people sometimes dishonor contracts does not imply that the concept of contract is useless. If that's th
294.
by fexl 15y ago
Thinking abstractly is one thing; thinking sloppily is quite another. In fact, thinking abstractly requires the utmost precision in concepts and definitions. And trust me, I have many decades of fruitful experience at thinking abstractly,
295.
by fexl 15y ago
Yes, he stretched the term "free market" way too far. My definition of a free market is: any group of individuals who produce things and trade with each other on the basis of mutual consent, never initiating coercion against another. Cl
296.
by fexl 15y ago
The word "backed" means almost nothing to me in any context, so I try to avoid it. The word "redeemable" has a clear contractual meaning. Bitcoin is certainly not redeemable for anything. I would like to see a digital asset which is contr
297.
by fexl 15y ago
It is definitely not a pyramid scheme. A pyramid scheme is a program which promises investment returns which are only sustainable by capital infusions from new investors. The creators of Bitcoin never promised investment returns, therefor
298.
by fexl 15y ago
The contractor (or employee) would negotiate the appropriate contract with the customer (or employer). Typically these days such contracts specify that all payments will be made in an instrument such as USD or EUR, but the contract could j
299.
by fexl 15y ago
... can be used anonymously over the internet Bitcoin transactions are easily traceable, so to achieve anonymity you must take care to avoid associating your IP address with spend locations. You can use gold over the internet as well, usi
300.
by fexl 15y ago
Yes, and there is a simple reason why gold is mostly a non-consumption commodity: because it is more useful as a monetary commodity. It has a distinct combination of physical properties which give it monetary properties. It is durable, m

More ›