tome

4 ms·

31.
by tome 4mo ago
Thought experiment: suppose company C does a small IPO. I'm rich and buy all their offering. Scenario 1: I hold all the stock for decades until I die. Under your terminology, I am the sole "investor". Fine. Scenario 2: 1 mil
32.
by tome 4mo ago
So it's not the stealing that was wrong, but what the proceeds were put to?
33.
by tome 4mo ago
Yeah, it should be about the value everyone gets from billionaires. I would love there to be more billionaires. It would be a sign that more and more wealth is being created in society. More billionaires should exist!
34.
by tome 4mo ago
Oh, I don't know any of those. The only billionaires I know of are those providing service to consumers or businesses that people can freely decide whether to pay for or not. I just subscribed to another thing on Amazon for far less
35.
by tome 4mo ago
I fear you are right, but I feel like trying it anyway.
36.
by tome 4mo ago
> Once they define it as stealing, then it's morally indefensible, by definition. Right, similar to the equivocation around the meaning of earn in this thread. I've started to wonder whether it's possible to push by acce
37.
by tome 4mo ago
Yeah I was more interested in why you haven't saved a baby's life for $4000. Maybe I'm being presumptuous, but even if you don't have $4000 in savings and liquid investments you could probably get a loan for $4000, or e
38.
by tome 4mo ago
Why haven't you saved a baby's life?
39.
by tome 4mo ago
How many would it be?
40.
by tome 4mo ago
Do you have a want to please millions of people whose lives are improved by exactly the product that your company sells? I could certainly do without that, but it does sound nice.
41.
by tome 4mo ago
Sadly, I don't believe that many college grads reasonably well educated in anything other than a scientific field understand exponentials.
42.
by tome 4mo ago
What's morally indefensible about that?
43.
by tome 4mo ago
What AOC is trying to do here is shift the debate from extracting retribution on people who have violated specific laws (a fair and an honest way to enforce justice in a civil society) to extracting retribution on people who she insinuates
44.
by tome 4mo ago
Silly question, but if you don’t look at the code, how do you know if the test is implemented?
45.
by tome 4mo ago
Ah yes, OK, I missed the point that the timeout is applied to the entire continuation, not just the part of the computation until the next await. Bluefin can't currently do that. I think I could make it do that, using the same implemen
46.
by tome 4mo ago
Thanks! This begins to make more sense to me > effects are handled by handlers OK, and in the general case a handler allows its body to "perform" an action, and when the action is performed it has the ability to "respond&q
47.
by tome 4mo ago
> Example 2.3 in the paper states that IO is an algebraic effect Oh, I meant what Haskell calls `IO`, which includes the ability to launch threads, use delimited continuation primops, abort the program, communicate with the FFI, and all
48.
by tome 4mo ago
Ah, thanks, maybe this holds a clue! (Clearly I have been interested in getting to the bottom of this for a while.) So maybe an "algebraic effect" is one that's isomorphic to a free monad of a functor that itself is an algebr
49.
by tome 4mo ago
Right, I understand the history (although I'm not sure I'd say that exception don't compose well) and I understand that "algebraic effects" are an attempt at something better. But I don't understand whether the
50.
by tome 4mo ago
It's my belief that all effects can be done with dependency injection in some form, at least, I'm not familiar with ones that can't. Even arbitrary delimited continuations can be implemented by injecting a reference to the
51.
by tome 4mo ago
Thanks. It says > Algebraic eﬀects & handlers use a free monad and an interpreter to separate the syntax of eﬀects from their semantics I'm pretty sure not everybody who works with algebraic effects would say they have to be bas
52.
by tome 4mo ago
Thanks, I definitely feel like I understand monads and their benefits, and even "effects", but I'm not sure what's "algebraic" in "algebraic effects".
53.
by tome 4mo ago
Interesting, then I wonder if anyone has distinguished them from continuation "protocols" such as shift/reset and prompt/control. Thanks! Bringing it back to my original point, I guess I'd say that if you already ha
54.
by tome 4mo ago
> Protocol in a very layman-y "perform is supposed to do this, resume is supposed to do this". OK, but at the very least it has two primitives "perform" and "resume"? And they're supposed to interact in
55.
by tome 4mo ago
"Actual logging" as in direct access to IO?
56.
by tome 4mo ago
That's very interesting, thanks! It gave me a brainwave and I wondered I could implement that in Bluefin. I'm pretty sure Bluefin's Request[1] is a second class stackful coroutine, and sure enough it turns out to be possible
57.
by tome 4mo ago
> They're really just a protocol. Thanks, that clarifies where you're coming from. Is it possible to specify this protocol somehow, by defining an interface for it? Or by extending lambda calculus with the bits it needs? (Maybe
58.
by tome 4mo ago
I don't think I said they're just continuations. In fact I'm trying to make the point that they're mostly just function calls (and I think in my career I've come across one case where I wanted something beyond fun
59.
by tome 4mo ago
> I dislike the concept of having a second, hidden, control flow that might get sprung up upon function callers, because it has side effects buried in the implementation of a callee that are not defined in the parameters or the returns Y
60.
by tome 4mo ago
Not sure why people are saying "you can't" when it seems to me the whole point of algebraic effects that you can. You can define g so that it has no ability to do "general IO", all it can do is yield log messages.

More ›