foldr

34 ms·

421.
by foldr 10mo ago
>How does a statically typed language rejecting a correct program affect reliability? Because in some cases it will reject code that is simple and obviously correct, which will then need to be replaced by code that is less simple and les
422.
by foldr 10mo ago
99% of laptop users will notice no difference between 64G of RAM and 16GB of RAM. For example, I am a software engineer with an M1 MacBook Pro with 16GB of RAM for work and a personal M4 MacBook Pro with 24GB of RAM. There is no noticeable
423.
by foldr 10mo ago
Merry Christmas! I am not arguing that people should be paid public money to do Chomskyan linguistics. That is an entirely separate question from the question of whether or not Chomsky's key claims are true and whether his research pro
424.
by foldr 10mo ago
>but I do feel qualified to observe the whole thing [Chomskyian linguistics] appears to be externally useless Sure, Chomsky's work doesn't have practical applications. Most scientific work doesn't. It's just that, for
425.
by foldr 10mo ago
As the sibling says, it’s definitely worth waiting at least a week or two to see if the M1 recovers. I’ve had the same experience.
426.
by foldr 10mo ago
Believe Everett if you want to, but it doesn’t make much difference to anything. Not every language has to exploit the option of recursive clausal embedding. The implications for generative linguistics are pretty minor. Yes, Everett respond
427.
by foldr 10mo ago
> So what's his progress? Everything that I see turns inward, valuable only within the framework that he himself constructed. It's really not true that the whole of generative linguistics is just some kind of self-referential p
428.
by foldr 10mo ago
> The human-designed architecture of an LLM makes no such prediction; but after training, the overall system including the learned weights absolutely does, or else it couldn't generate valid language. It makes a prediction about wha
429.
by foldr 10mo ago
> What should or shouldn’t be a wh-island" is literally a statement of "what words might come after some other words"! This gets at the nub of the misunderstanding. Chomsky is interested in modeling the range of grammatica
430.
by foldr 10mo ago
They are not predictive models in the domains Chomsky investigated. LLMs make no predictions about, say, when non-surface quantifier scope should or should not be possible, or what should or shouldn’t be a wh-island. They are predictive in
431.
by foldr 10mo ago
I’m not really sure what you’re getting at. Could you point to some papers exemplifying the kind of work that you’re thinking of? Of course there are lots of people training LLMs and other statistical models on EEG data, but that does not s
432.
by foldr 10mo ago
I'm a big Chomsky nerd, Chomsky fan, and card-carrying ex Chomskyan linguist. I hate to break it to you, but not even Chomsky thought that the Chomsky hierarchy had any very interesting application to natural languages. Amongst lingu
433.
by foldr 10mo ago
Chomsky's talking about predictive models in the context of cognitive science. LLMs aren't really a predictive model of any aspect of human cognitive function.
434.
by foldr 10mo ago
Some relevant info here: https://www.flyajetfighter.com/the-ws-15-engine-enters-servi...
435.
by foldr 10mo ago
China doesn’t yet have the jet engine technology to compete with American 5th gen fighters. I certainly don’t think the US or anyone else should be complacent, but the US has a substantial lead for now.
436.
by foldr 10mo ago
> If someone’s messages suddenly become unusually urgent or extreme, emotionally negative, absolutist, inward-focused and socially detached, it may be a sign they’re struggling. No shit.
437.
by foldr 10mo ago
In fairness, the article has a section titled “The Numbers” which links to this: https://htmx.org/essays/a-real-world-react-to-htmx-port/
438.
by foldr 10mo ago
Those requirements are already documented. Let’s not pretend that it’s impossible to write safe code that uses qsort.
439.
by foldr 10mo ago
You’ve kindly finished the thought for me. You now have a “safe” version of C purely by updating the standard and associated documentation. (It’s not actually true that you need to redesign all the APIs in the stdlib. You just need to docum
440.
by foldr 10mo ago
I don't think it makes sense to compare non-invariant-respecting unsafe blocks to compiler bugs. It would make sense to do so if unsafe blocks were only present in a highly-verified Rust stdlib, but we both know that's not the cas
441.
by foldr 10mo ago
No, I just think that Rust is less safe than it would be if it didn’t have the unsafe escape hatch. I think you’re taking issue with how pizlonator phrased his post rather than addressing the substance of his point that Fil-C does not have
442.
by foldr 10mo ago
I'm aware of that, but I'm responding to the original claim that "Rust makes the same guarantees regardless of the unsafe keyword " (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46262774 )
443.
by foldr 10mo ago
You seem to be suggesting that a language being safe or unsafe is a social contract rather than a technical property of the language. >And do you say that C offers these guarantees ? No, that would be silly, and it's an illustrati
444.
by foldr 10mo ago
It’s really sad to see your posts on this thread. Fil-C is an incredible achievement and absolutely full of interesting technical details to dig into. I’m not a mod, but as a reader of the site and someone who takes a curious interest in th
445.
by foldr 10mo ago
What I mean is, what’s to stop us saying that C upholds all the same guarantees that Rust does and that it’s the programmer that’s responsible for upholding them (just as the programmer is responsible in the case of Rust code marked ‘unsafe
446.
by foldr 10mo ago
C is safe by the same logic, then? You can write safe code in anything if you don’t make mistakes.
447.
by foldr 11mo ago
Escape analysis clearly isn’t part of the semantics of Go. For that to be the case, the language standard would have to specify exactly which values are guaranteed to be stack allocated. In reality, this depends on size thresholds which can
448.
by foldr 11mo ago
I mean that escape analysis has nothing to do with my example either, in terms of understand the semantics of the code (so I’m disagreeing with the ‘because GC and escape analysis ’ part of your comment).
449.
by foldr 11mo ago
Well, my point is that escape analysis has nothing to do with it at the semantic level. So it's actually just 'because GC'. You don't need the concept of escape analysis at all to understand the behavior of the Go exampl
450.
by foldr 11mo ago
I don't know about your code, but in general, goroutine stacks are designed to start small and grow. There is nothing concerning about this. A call to runtime.newstack triggered by a large stack-allocated value would generally be cheap

More ›