quchen

10 ms·

121.
by quchen 3y ago
I think most people get over-sold blotters. Every now and then there's a study checking how much LSD is actually on sold-as-200ug blotters, and it's typically 60-80. This also leads to heavy overdoses when getting your hands on
122.
by quchen 3y ago
My pupils are fine at that dose. It's more subtle, it's the way I start looking at things (clouds, bark, grass, fur, my own hand) or zoning out while talking to someone. FWIW I never went above 100ug, nor do I feel like I want or
123.
by quchen 3y ago
Assuming you have almost no prior knowledge about LSD, you might not be sure whether you're in the control group or not if you were actually given the placebo . If you received the LSD instead: 75ug is a very noticeable dose, I assure
124.
by quchen 3y ago
Or rather, make sure you know what you're taking. Chemical reagent tests exist, so do fentanyl, NBOMe, bromo-dragonfly. Responsible use is no overly cautious joke.
125.
by quchen 3y ago
I'm neither a fan of drug glorification nor FUD. The link is from someone who took lots of different substances very irresponsibily, > I got some acid from a friend of a friend. It was some sort of pink substance smudged on the back
126.
by quchen 4y ago
A rule of thumb in classical mechanics is that 0.1c is when you should start taking (special) relativity into account, I think it’s 0.5% contribution then. For general relativity I don’t know such a cutoff rule of thumb. Astronomy-wise, Mer
127.
by quchen 4y ago
Pascal’s Wager, AI edition? :-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager
128.
by quchen 4y ago
Computing (or computing with ) a square root is much easier than solving a quadratic equation! - A square root’s result is always nonnegative (or in the complex case, has nonnegative real part) and unique, whereas the quadratic equation ha
129.
by quchen 4y ago
Church encoding is pretty cool, yes! It encodes Booleans such that »if == id«. Likewise, natural numbers are essentially counting for-loops: 3 f x = f (f (f x)), so »for == id«. I had to work with this for a while because I wanted to implem
130.
by quchen 4y ago
If is semantically the only way to deconstruct a Boolean in any language, so as long as you have bools, you’re going to have `if`. Sure you can give if different syntax and write it with match/case/?:/whatever, but that’s not
131.
by quchen 4y ago
tl;dr do the obvious. 1. take out of toilet (oh really) 2. wipe off water 3. dry it for a while
132.
by quchen 4y ago
> Anyone whom has taken a psilocybin containing mushroom will tell you that [X] mushrooms have strange and magical powers There’s a »psilocybin« missing in the [X] spot. Fungi are an entire biological kingdom, with variety as big as ther
133.
by quchen 4y ago
Only 99 alien artifacts to unlock blue belts 7 green science for 2 alien artifacts 5€ for 120 green science
134.
by quchen 4y ago
Isn’t it contradictory to say it’s the most frequent usage, and in the next sentence that no modern programming language does it?
135.
by quchen 4y ago
What are the other reasons? I'm not familiar with running, I assumed it was the rotating team.
136.
by quchen 4y ago
I think another 4 chars can be removed by replacing `head` with `!!0`.
137.
by quchen 4y ago
OP’s link disagrees. A critical vulnerability being called »not a bug RTFM« is the same cultural and engineering level of »string length as hash function what’s the problem«.
138.
by quchen 4y ago
… and later throwing more and more darts and still hitting the center.
139.
by quchen 4y ago
You don’t tell me about math envy and I won’t mention how the Dirac Delta Function was invented, deal? :-P
140.
by quchen 4y ago
> mathematical wankery Some blog posts are wankery. Haskell in practice is as separate and separable from it as you want. I learned what a mathematical monad is out of interest (after using them in practice for years), and my conclusion
141.
by quchen 4y ago
That’s a very interesting take on things I haven’t heard before, but it seems plausible! Thanks for the insight :-)
142.
by quchen 4y ago
FWIW I program my CNC with Haskell, how's that for academic
143.
by quchen 4y ago
My preferred way is `(f . g . h) x`: parentheses have good editor support, are very readable when there aren’t that many.
144.
by quchen 4y ago
My source really was people talking about it on #freenode and playing with LambdaBot at the time. There’s a good chance the linked blog post is a transitive source though!
145.
by quchen 4y ago
The use here is as a section, not to change precedence: `($ x)` could also have been written as `\f -> f x`, which I think is even less readable. As for the usage on the lower code snippets like `for […] $ \x -> …`, then it saves some
146.
by quchen 4y ago
Worth noting that I wrote this as a result of a discussion on #haskell on Freenode/IRC. I have to say it’s quite (happily) surprising to me that people on HN enjoy it after all those years :-D
147.
by quchen 4y ago
Edwin Brady often talks about his (digital) lab assistant. I think that’s a good mental image: an AI assistant is what we’ve used so far and I think is fine. They help us bounce ideas back and forth (e.g. searching) and correct typical mist
148.
by quchen 4y ago
Oh hey Tel, do I remember you right from #haskell on Freenode? : - D
149.
by quchen 4y ago
Thanks for pointing out that the f must be a function part is particularly difficult. Is this only a problem for infinite sets (of sets to pick from)? Is it trivial to construct a function that picks a single element from an arbitrary set
150.
by quchen 4y ago
Good question, I’m confused about this as well! Take for example the single-element set containing the set of ℝ→ℝ functions, so { {f | f: ℝ→ℝ} }. The author seems to suggest there’s a natural choice for those functions. To me this sounds as

More ›