nyssos

17 ms·

181.
by nyssos 3y ago
That's not the sense in which Elm is hostile. It's hostile as in 1990s Microsoft. There are lots of little things, but the big ones are: - the compiler detects whether it's compiling core libraries and disables some features
182.
by nyssos 3y ago
I'm not using head, because I know Haskell well. But someone new to the language is never, ever, ever going to intuit that you get the head of a list with `listToMaybe` and `head` actually means `unsafeHead` and should almost never b
183.
by nyssos 3y ago
> all you’re going to do is pattern match on its result to check if it’s a Just Something is eventually going to pattern match on it. But it might well be some handler way way up at the top of my program, and all I want to do right now
184.
by nyssos 3y ago
Maybe the economists who study asset pricing in financial markets should, but that's just one subfield among many. No one is beating the S&P with their knowledge of Japanese labor market dynamics or the 19th century Spanish wool in
185.
by nyssos 3y ago
Depends heavily on the timescale. 0.1% slippage is irrelevant if you hold for years but a serious problem if you trade every hour.
186.
by nyssos 3y ago
Haskell's current dependent typing is expressive, but also painful to use and almost impossible to debug. The main thing I want out of dependent Haskell isn't more power (though I wouldn't turn it down), it's the ability
187.
by nyssos 3y ago
> What would it mean for code to be semantically correct while containing type errors? It would probably mean that the code is not in fact semantically correct because some semantic edge cases are not covered by the tests. It can also me
188.
by nyssos 3y ago
Elm is better, but I would still recommend against it. - The dictator for life is ambiguously benevolent at best - JS interop is deliberately heavily locked down (good) with no escape hatches (bad) - the compiler release cycle is extremely
189.
by nyssos 3y ago
> You can't use the types in runtime so all that effort you put into the types doesn't actually translate when you want to use the type system to full effect. This isn't really the problem: runtime types would solve the is
190.
by nyssos 3y ago
> templating Yes, running arbitrary code at compile-time can produce arbitrarily complicated results if you're not very very careful. This is not a type system issue: lisp macros are just as dangerous. > abstract base classes Aga
191.
by nyssos 3y ago
> such that a type problem not caught by Typescript potentially corrupted memory What does this have to do with static types? High-level languages, typed or untyped, are generally memory-safe. They'd need a very good excuse not to b
192.
by nyssos 3y ago
You can't do full nominal subtyping, so no high church OO, but you can add subtyping for records without too much trouble.
193.
by nyssos 3y ago
> Does anyone here know how Standard ML inferred types? SML uses Hindley-Milner (with some modifications to support imperative code). Many statically typed functional languages descend from it: Haskell and OCaml are the most prominent. &
194.
by nyssos 3y ago
> But as both datums were stored as floating point numbers, which they always would be, in any reasonable implementation, static typing wouldn't have caught anything. Types are not runtime representations, and any good nominal type
195.
by nyssos 3y ago
> A strong type system does not allow types to change after being established. A weak type system allows types to change. For dynamic types, sure, that's a reasonable enough definition. But it doesn't really make sense for stat
196.
by nyssos 3y ago
Cranks, almost by definition, are pretty much instantly recognizable to an expert: no one needs to apply extra scrutiny to catch them. Suspect industry funding is a problem in some fields, but the powers that be couldn't care less abou
197.
by nyssos 3y ago
> then wouldn't that also apply to the prizes at the top? It does, but the politics and favoritism is happening within a heavily selected group of very, very competent people. Plenty of people get snubbed for petty reasons, but they
198.
by nyssos 3y ago
No, this is upper level undergrad/introductory graduate material. Popsci is going to be worse than useless.
199.
by nyssos 3y ago
They are not. MACHOs definitely exist, it just turns out there aren't nearly enough of them. Axions were proposed as a solution to the strong CP problem years before anyone went looking for dark matter candidates. Sterile (i.e. right-h
200.
by nyssos 3y ago
> Isn't that just our understanding of gravity not being complete. No. It's that, but it's not just that: if a QFT in 4-d spacetime has a coupling constant with a negative mass dimension, it has infinitely many free para
201.
by nyssos 3y ago
> Are there any programming languages or domains that are "functional/declarative oriented" but actually have jobs? Scala probably has the most, but there's also a lot of people who insist on pretending its Java, so i
202.
by nyssos 3y ago
> Anyone else feel like they read a ton of wild speculation presented as utmost confidence? You're reading statements put out by university PR departments, or worse yet, journalists' attempts at summarizing them. It's almo
203.
by nyssos 3y ago
> Since DM is a substance that, for all intents and purposes, defies detection by any means at our disposal, it makes no further predictions This is completely untrue. All serious dark matter candidates are observable. For example: - MAC
204.
by nyssos 3y ago
> The laws of physics (of the time) conspired to make everything look as if there was phlogiston, too. No, they conspired to make it look as if some substance was transferred between fuel and air during combustion, and between the air a
205.
by nyssos 3y ago
Most of the evidence is localized around galaxies (not just rotation curves, but also radial velocities and excess gravitational lensing), but not all. Even uniformly distributed dark matter would still show up as a contribution to the mass
206.
by nyssos 3y ago
> What the Higgs mechanism does is add effective mass even to particles which are intrinsically massless, so long as they couple to the Higgs field. For the standard model, that means leptons, quarks, and the W and Z bosons. this was slo
207.
by nyssos 3y ago
> I was immediately asking myself: what about the CMB? Surely that would have a stonking big anisotropy if the speed of light wasn't close to the same in all directions? No, you can always cancel it out by making the whole rest of p
208.
by nyssos 3y ago
> There have been actually many positive theories trying to explain what particles dark matter could be, they've all been proven wrong. Not at all. Ordinary neutrinos and MACHOs (black holes, rogue gas giants, extremely faint dwarf
209.
by nyssos 3y ago
Characterizing what things "are" in a physical theory is not really possible: ultimately physics is only concerned with (and only has access to) what things do. When we say that "The X-ion has mass m", in the context of
210.
by nyssos 3y ago
"Cold" in this context means "a typical particle is moving slow enough that we can safely neglect relativistic effects". Hydrogen plasma on the surface of the sun is "cold", in this sense. Solar neutrinos are n

More ›