tome

17 ms·

241.
by tome 1y ago
> > these kinds of threads almost never feel to me like the juice is worth the squeeze > I agree. The trouble is that not discussing it at all is not a solution either. Not discussing it at all is certainly a solution. There are pl
242.
by tome 1y ago
I think this is probably a sign that you shouldn't allow these posts on HN, despite the rationale posted by dang in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44718396 If the flagging is such that one point of view is repr
243.
by tome 1y ago
When I worked for Standard Chartered I was told that Mu, the compiler in question, was only strict because it was originally written to target an existing strict runtime (called Lambda, and Mu is the next letter in the Greek alphabet), not
244.
by tome 1y ago
I doubt it's Haskellers saying that. In my experience Haskellers don't even think about Lisp at all.
245.
by tome 1y ago
You get that on top of do notation, with no additional syntax required for example `IORef` or Bluefin's `State`: https://www.stackage.org/haddock/lts-23.27/base-4.19.2.0/Dat... https://hacka
246.
by tome 1y ago
Funny you mention that because that's exactly how my talk at ZuriHac 2025 started, video published just yesterday: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsTuy1jXQ6Y
247.
by tome 1y ago
What's wrong with that? Haskell is, after all, the "world's finest imperative language". https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/...
248.
by tome 1y ago
> Those annotations create a compile-time enforced typological relationship between the input and output values of the function. Python doesn't have mandatory type-checking so it can't do that Python doesn't have (mandator
249.
by tome 1y ago
> But historically, wasn't there a fair period of time between Haskell insisting on referential transparency (and therefore not allowing traditional mutable state) and monads being introduced as a way to deal with it? That was my un
250.
by tome 1y ago
This is not historically how Haskell was developed. Haskell didn't try to "avoid mutable state". Haskell tried to be (and indeed succeeded in being) referentially transparent. Now, it turns out that you can't uphold refe
251.
by tome 1y ago
Everything in here, for a start: https://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-4.21.0.0/docs/Contr... https://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-4.21.0.0/docs/Data-...
252.
by tome 1y ago
It's not about what a monad can do, it's about a property of the language: referential transparency. Haskell has referential transparency, Python doesn't. That's a technical condition but here's a simple consequen
253.
by tome 1y ago
> No, nor have I said a ground invasion will happen Oof, OK, I suppose not, you only said " The [my emphasis] ground invasion hasn't started yet". There is some degree of ambiguity there. Forgive me for thinking you were
254.
by tome 1y ago
> Libya, Syria, Iraq gave up their WMD projects eventually got bombed/attacked That's ahistorical in the case of Syria and Iraq. Israel destroyed the nascent nuclear weapons programmes of Syria and Iraq, just as it has done to
255.
by tome 1y ago
And if a ground invasion doesn't happen will you agree to never to speculate on the subject again?
256.
by tome 1y ago
> Zaphar didn't make any argument, they only implied one I agree! Yet you said: > That was in response to the argument that I believe the GP was making so I was confused. But now you've clarified: > I responded to the mo
257.
by tome 1y ago
In case you weren't following the thread from the beginning, it started with voidhorse criticising Scott Aaronson for "defence of genocide" (and thereby making an implicit claim of genocide): https://news.ycombinat
258.
by tome 1y ago
I have no interest in proving anything to you. It's you who seems to have an interest in proving something to me. Your message suggests you _can_ do so, so please go ahead. I would particularly interested in your answer to my questio
259.
by tome 1y ago
But I'm not making the claim that there's no genocide. And I certainly don't have a "personal methodology for determining whether something is a genocide"! (Do you?!) I'm pointing out that Ar-Curunir's c
260.
by tome 1y ago
But it's not the same evidence. It's a completely different situation. Completely different events have occurred, completely different amounts of time have elapsed since and they have been subjected to completely different amounts
261.
by tome 1y ago
> Assuming you do believe that genocide is extremely shitty, wouldn't that imply that defense of (actual) genocide, or the principle of it, is in all likelihood shitter than a false accusation of genocide? Otherwise I think you&#x27
262.
by tome 1y ago
Oh, perhaps this response, which I missed implies you think that defence of genocide is worse than false accusation of genocide: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44320889
263.
by tome 1y ago
I'm happy to answer that. No I wouldn't. The Holocaust is probably the most studied subject in human history. It's not as though there is much uncertainty about the major events of it. In any case, this is really going off to
264.
by tome 1y ago
Sorry, what in my post suggests intellectual dishonesty? Under your dictionary definition, would you say that the Allies in WWII committed genocide of Germans and Japanese? If you say "yes", then I suppose you're entitled to
265.
by tome 1y ago
> Thank you, in one sense you failed the challenge because I'm not interested in engaging in your deeper trolling And yet you replied, curious. In any case, that's OK, since I wasn't responding in order to meet your chall
266.
by tome 1y ago
Interesting presumption. Would you like it if I said "Did you find anything else helpful in your marriage, or was it just choosing to stop beating your wife?"? And yes, I have some. One is that false claims of genocide are equal
267.
by tome 1y ago
Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. Could you explain what you mean by "god forbid" in this context?
268.
by tome 1y ago
Interesting conclusion, since I didn't make a claim either way. Still, for the record, other independent observers have documented the practices and explained why they don't meet the definition of genocide, John Spencer and Natash
269.
by tome 1y ago
I'm not the one making pronouncements about the "shittiness" of forms of human behaviour.
270.
by tome 1y ago
Let's have a look at the history of the thread: pbiggar made a claim, now deleted ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44317597 ) zaphar says: "it ignores nearly 2-3000 years of history" ( https://n

More ›