rntz

17 ms·

121.
by rntz 9y ago
> According to Unesco, 29% of women worldwide are in science research, compared with 41% in Russia. In the UK, about 4% of inventors are women, whereas the figure is 15% in Russia. These numbers seem ludicrously high regardless of gender
122.
by rntz 10y ago
The trouble with this advice is that, while it's accurate if your one and only goal is to predict the likelihood of someone divorcing or cheating on you, it seems profoundly unfair. To examine this "unfairness", let's im
123.
by rntz 10y ago
I'm familiar with Turing-equivalence, but the argument in that section didn't seem analogous to me. In the first place, it's about human universality, not computer universality; so an implicit premise of the "parodie
124.
by rntz 10y ago
Summary: This is a parody of various arguments about superintelligent AI. It opens by parodying the classic futurist parable of history as exponential growth in intellect and technology, recasting history as a tale of growth in size (after
125.
by rntz 10y ago
The original title is clearer: "No, Republicans didn't just strip away your Internet privacy rights". The leading "No," makes it clear that it's denying that Republicans took away rights; without it, the "
126.
by rntz 10y ago
To me that sounds almost hypocritical. You should be uncertain of your beliefs, but act like you're not? What am I missing?
127.
by rntz 10y ago
Huh! Now I am super confused.
128.
by rntz 10y ago
CMU grad here, working on a PhD. First, don't put too much emphasis on school. Great programmers can come from anywhere. Many other commenters are emphasizing the role of selection effect: top-tier schools select good students, rather
129.
by rntz 10y ago
CMU grad here, currently working on a PhD. All I can say is, this description doesn't apply to me. I'm definitely of the "work smart, not hard" persuasion. Persistence, I guess I have; but not an unbounded work ethic, or
130.
by rntz 10y ago
(?=((?!exp).)*a.*) is also wrong; it doesn't match "expba", but (?~exp)a.* does.
131.
by rntz 10y ago
This isn't about negative lookaheads or lookbehinds. It's about negation proper. It is perfectly declarative: the language matched by (?~E) is the complement of the language matched by E.
132.
by rntz 10y ago
You propose: (?=((?!exp).)*$) I don't believe you're right, but can't be sure, because you haven't given a method of translating an arbitrary regular expression containing a negation (?~E) into one without. For
133.
by rntz 10y ago
It isn't quite that easy to emulate lookahead using intersection (AND). For (?=a)b you're right, but that's because `a` and `b` both only ever match strings of length one. `(?=foo)f`, for example, will match the first charact
134.
by rntz 10y ago
The negation (complement) of a regular language is always regular. So in the CS theory sense, these are still regular expressions. However, while regular languages correspond to finite automata, the transformation which negates a NFA is not
135.
by rntz 10y ago
EDIT: My original comment was wrong. Git commit signing apparently only signs the commit hash itself, so it's only as trustworthy as the integrity of the hash. However, see also other comments which point out that this isn't a pre
136.
by rntz 10y ago
The "there is at least one class which.." doesn't mean "there is at least one class in that class of mutually exclusive classes which..."; it means "there exists at least one class at all which...". Th
137.
by rntz 10y ago
In a multithreaded context, even that isn't perfect; another thread can observe the array in an inconsistent state while you're mutating it. I wonder what Ruby does here?
138.
by rntz 10y ago
I do not work on NLP, but my understanding was that, for purely syntactic work, standard parse-tree-based techniques had been quite successful in NLP; and that it is only for semantic work that symbolic representations begin to show weaknes
139.
by rntz 10y ago
Compilation and interpretation are also implementation strategy issues, unrelated to programming paradigms. Almost any language can be implemented using either strategy, and most systems we think of as "interpreted" in reality emp
140.
by rntz 10y ago
The immediate question I had was: "compiles JS to what "? Apparently the answer is: to Javascript. It's what some call a transpiler: it compiles Javascript plus some extra features down to a more "vanilla" Javascri
141.
Narrative Neediness(hapgood.us)
2 points by rntz 10y ago|0 comments
142.
by rntz 10y ago
This is about implementation strategies, which I think are a lower-level idea than paradigms. Datalog is a logic language that can be implemented without using backtracking/"search", for example.
143.
Aphorisms on programming language design(rntz.net)
2 points by rntz 10y ago|0 comments
144.
by rntz 10y ago
What does it mean to say that analog and digital computers have the same computational power? My intuition would be something like: for any function calculable by an analog computer, for any desired degree of precision, there is a Turing-co
145.
by rntz 10y ago
That is not what programs as proofs means. It is not that the program finds or performs the proof; the program is the proof, in a certain formal sense. The thing it proves is its type. The validation step is type-checking. For most progra
146.
by rntz 10y ago
(nitpick) Are metabolic systems and neuron networks really discrete (as opposed to analog) systems?
147.
by rntz 10y ago
There are accounts of infinitely-running programs as proofs; they have to do with the proof technique of conduction, which has to do with proving properties of infinite data structures; a counterpart of the more familiar technique of induct
148.
by rntz 10y ago
Okay, then I can pick another example: A dictionary where the type of the values depends on the key they're inserted under. (For example, a representation of the closure of a function in a typed language.) Of course, then I can go to a
149.
by rntz 10y ago
EDIT: I've been chewing over the following: > This means that we can trivially translate a dynamically typed program into a statically typed program, though obviously we don't gain anything by that at this point (this is essent
150.
by rntz 10y ago
> The difference compared to a (good) static type system is that a good [1] static type system does not measurably reduce expressiveness This is pseudo-jargon. What counts as a "measurable" reduction? Do you have any substantiv

More ›