nv-vn

29 ms·

271.
by nv-vn 9y ago
Sorry, to clarify I mean that by design OCaml = Reason. The only way it would not be possible to link the two would be with artificial restrictions. Though they are very different looking, they share the exact same semantics, type system, m
272.
by nv-vn 9y ago
Pure Reason exists, but you can just use `refmt` to convert any OCaml code to Reason (which isn't even necessary, since they both get compiled to the same thing and are stored in the same syntax tree).
273.
by nv-vn 9y ago
Reason targets JS programmers. OCaml's toolchain is great honestly, it just seems like ~85% of Reason users are more focused on the JS parts of the language, so what happens is the new users from Reason don't really do much to con
274.
by nv-vn 9y ago
Is the OCaml compiler really the same as those others though? I'd say it's more complex than that. It has a very large middle-end that most compilers don't. Things that are pluggable so far: - Lexing/Parsing (ReasonML) -
275.
by nv-vn 9y ago
Any Reason code can be linked to OCaml code, because OCaml = Reason. In fact, they are only syntactically different. That is, Reason is an alternate syntax for OCaml. BuckleScript/js_of_ocaml can be used in either language, which is to
276.
by nv-vn 9y ago
W.r.t. the now overdiscussed Google memo: isn't this hammering in that same point? Diversity programs are not going to change the jobs that appeal to different people. Company culture can change that, and men and women are largely look
277.
by nv-vn 9y ago
Highly agree. As a current high school student, I've gone out of my way to study discrete math. Though I found calculus interesting, it's not particularly applicable to any part of CS except for a few concepts. OTOH, DM is incredi
278.
by nv-vn 9y ago
the magic of machine learning, everybody
279.
by nv-vn 9y ago
Totally is. I live on the East Coast in an illegal state and all weed around here is either imported from legal states or grown locally. It's not hard to find grow ops or people who will ship weed here. In a world where mass quantities
280.
by nv-vn 9y ago
There's no incentive to make a movie if it will never make any money. Without copyright, anyone can purchase it once and give it away for free or sell each copy for $0.01 and undercut all competition. Digital content takes X amount of
281.
by nv-vn 9y ago
So basically unless you're RMS you're fucked
282.
by nv-vn 9y ago
To be clear I'm not trying to vilify anyone or deny the allegations. It's possible that they occurred and it's possible that the people who reported these claims did not intend to misconstrue the situation. Sometimes observin
283.
by nv-vn 9y ago
>Appelbaum denied the allegations at the time, calling the accusations “a calculated and targeted attack.” I think it's worth noting that no proof has been presented publicly, and to the contrary, 2 of the alleged victims have denie
284.
by nv-vn 9y ago
If it's unfavorable to large tech players, why does every single one campaign for it? These are the companies that make up most of the bandwidth use, which is why ISPs want to slow them down if they don't pay for a "fast lane
285.
by nv-vn 9y ago
I agree with your overall point, but this tactic seems almost as disingenuous as the other side. I don't think we should be equating speech with body counts, even if it was the same view that brought about both. Though this is a good e
286.
by nv-vn 9y ago
3) Because "hate speech" has come to be a political tactic of censorship, just like "obscene speech"
287.
by nv-vn 9y ago
I can see your point but I don't think it's something that can be boiled down to a quick summary and then dismissed. The idea isn't about an inherent right, it's more about a courtesy of respect towards others no matter
288.
by nv-vn 9y ago
There's a difference to me between truly abusive comments and offensive opinions. I wouldn't argue in favor of workplace sexism (at least my definition of it), but if someone gives their genuine opinion then it should be tolerated
289.
by nv-vn 9y ago
It's not about criticism. It's about harassment and smear campaigns. The thing is, most people want criticism because they want to have conversations. Sama is saying that when you have a controversial opinion, you shouldn't f
290.
by nv-vn 9y ago
>I'm not trying to be partisan, but the Republican party in the US are the voice of a oligarchy. This FCC decision is the perfect example of it -- something they are profoundly incapable of building the slightest justification for,
291.
by nv-vn 9y ago
Which is why ObamaCare was passed? If they had total control of our country, don't you think that politics would fit their side a little bit better?
292.
by nv-vn 9y ago
Whether there are mistakes in the official documents doesn't change anything about the policy. They weren't persuaded because they didn't receive a persuasive argument about why net neutrality is supposed to help. That doesn&
293.
by nv-vn 9y ago
But I don't lose the benefit by not paying taxes. Plus those are only tiny percentages, which could easily be afforded from only 1% of your current tax rate.
294.
by nv-vn 9y ago
Why shouldn't you avoid paying taxes? If it's legal and you get to make more money, I don't see the issue. Especially if you're using that money to make more positive change than the government could.
295.
by nv-vn 9y ago
You are mixing the two arguments being made, i.e. the right to be heard and the right to hear. Your argument is in favor of the right to hear what Trump says, but the point where it becomes a "free speech zone" is when it is about
296.
by nv-vn 9y ago
> No, that does not follow from the article's analysis. Because the article is very clearly biased. Making it a legal requirement for tweets to be treated as though they are protected speech means that Twitter cannot shut people up
297.
by nv-vn 9y ago
> That is a clear-cut violation of the First Amendment. The problem is, he has not censored their speech. The message still goes out, it just never reaches Trump's mailbox. Like I stated in the above comment, the First Amendment doe
298.
by nv-vn 9y ago
>The key to the argument is that Twitter is a public forum The issue with that logic is that Twitter is still a private entity, and declaring them to be the facilitators of a public forum coerces them into certain actions (censoring anyt
299.
by nv-vn 9y ago
The core argument is that a private space (Twitter) can be a protected free speech zone. By that argument, nobody (including Twitter) can restrict those rights on the platform.
300.
by nv-vn 9y ago
This is true, but I think even more importantly, these actions go 100% against the spirit of the law. This article is basically arguing that the private sector can provide a public platform, which basically means that the actions of the pri

More ›