ukj

44 ms·

451.
by ukj 7y ago
Digital Philosophy [1] is not a new idea. As per the Wikipedia article it's a re-interpretation of Monist metaphysics. There's no easier way to say this without triggering people who haven't yet reasoned their way to these po
452.
by ukj 7y ago
The bedrock of science is not Mathematics - it's Formal Language Theory (FLT)[1] (but to be fair, this may be a semantic distinction). FLT is closer to Computer Science than Mathematics for one simple reason - Time. The concept of Time
453.
by ukj 7y ago
Given the vagueness of job descriptions in our field, what is and more importantly - what isn't 'my job' exactly? Is it or isn't it my job to question bad decisions?
454.
by ukj 7y ago
Tuning != Scaling Tuning == getting the most out of your hardware Scaling == my perfectly tuned node, with the lowest-latency/mostest IOPS IO subsystem, and highest number of CPUs, and the mostest amount of RAM can't handle my wor
455.
by ukj 7y ago
>DBMSs will finally be completely autonomous and self-healing Hahahahahahahaha - such optimism. Autonomous, self-healing, horizontally-scalable stateless systems are hard-but-doable. Autonomous, self-healing, horizontally-scalable stat
456.
by ukj 7y ago
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. --Donald Knuth On the one hand we have the management mantra: if you can't measure it you can't improve it. On the other hand we have Goodhart's l
457.
by ukj 7y ago
It is also intellectually dishonest to strawman an argument. I didn’t say it is impossible to do X with FP - I said it is not necessary to do X in FP. You can convince yourself of that by looking for larger-scale non-FP counter-examples to
458.
by ukj 7y ago
I validate your assumption against reality. If FP is not mandatory at Google-scale, it isn’t mandatory at your scale. The kind of problems that emerge at scale are not the kind of problems FP tackles.
459.
by ukj 7y ago
I never quite understood the pragmatic purpose of Approach 1. If punishment has no measurable, positive effect - why do it? Combine with Hanlon’s razor and indeed - victims become bullies when they default to Approach 1 when harm (rather th
460.
by ukj 7y ago
Constructivism/intuitionism seems to have culminated into modern-day finitism/ultrafinitism. In the likes of Doron Zeilberger (crank or genius - you decide). Par for the course for computer scientists - if we had infinite time&#x2
461.
by ukj 7y ago
What kind of computations can you perform with Lambda calculus without any input variables? What are you applying your α-conversion and β-reduction operations to?
462.
by ukj 7y ago
>what makes it functional is that the state / memory must be explicitly acknowledged Isn't state/memory assumed by default when talking about computation? What kind of computations you can perform on a Turing machine witho
463.
by ukj 7y ago
When you don't have to fix it when it stops servicing requests, or worry about scaling workloads. When you treat it as a black-to-grey box, not a grey-to-white box.
464.
by ukj 7y ago
It boils down to the steepness of the learning curves. If I am in the business of system reliability, I will choose the language with shallower rabbit holes. Abstraction layers are great for builders and terrible for fixers. I am both, so I
465.
by ukj 7y ago
I am in the Database-as-a-Service world. I have to understand all the intricacies of the system, so people who choose to treat databases as black boxes don't have to. There is only so far this abstraction holds. Stateless (immutable) c
466.
by ukj 7y ago
>you are free to ignore the things you don’t understand Is that why you are ignoring the complexity behind persistence/mutability/state? Even the Abstract Turing machine has ticker tape you know...
467.
by ukj 7y ago
Writing state is the definition of mutation. It's what all data storage systems do. An immutable data store sounds pretty useless. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_%28computer_scienc...
468.
by ukj 7y ago
What is this thing that you reading from and writing to? It sounds mutable.
469.
by ukj 7y ago
If I am Euthyphro, then you are Socrates - no? I thought Socrates was the troll.
470.
by ukj 7y ago
My knack for spotting performative contradictions didn't sway you towards Deskartes?
471.
by ukj 7y ago
>You take a different approach. Haskell provides plenty of options. So do other languages. Why is Haskell special in this regard? >There are many. You can consult your favourite search engine to learn more. None that seem to address t
472.
by ukj 7y ago
>I believe it is because abstractions are the way we have always made progress. >The abstractions allow us to offload a significant part of mental task Edge/corner cases in our abstractions is also how propagation of uncertainty[
473.
by ukj 7y ago
>There's no difference in practice either for a sufficiently small dataset. So what happens in practice with unfortunately large datasets? >Yes, Haskell can't help you escape the limitations of our world — or indeed our hard
474.
by ukj 7y ago
In a functional world persistence (e.g memory) cannot be a thing. The case is convincing, but it requires you to reject your own, human, faculties. Makes the use/expression of language rather awkward when you can't remember any wo
475.
by ukj 7y ago
This 1000 times. The reason SQL (really - relational algebra) works so well is precisely because relational data is strongly normalized [1]. But the data is only a model of reality, not reality itself. And when your immutable model of reali
476.
by ukj 7y ago
>But it was you who introduced... I did do that. With the intent to determine whether the discussion is about denotational semantics (theory) or operational semantics (practice). In theory there is no difference between theory and practi
477.
by ukj 7y ago
You can't tell he thinks he is Socrates? ;) I can. That's why I am entertaining him.
478.
by ukj 7y ago
Nice. I stand corrected.
479.
by ukj 7y ago
> A mutating getter doesn't violate the laws of non-contradiction, because a getter is not a proposition. In fact, if you use a getter at all, you're outside non-contradiction. Q.E.D you are admitting that non-contradiction it&
480.
by ukj 7y ago
>The law of non-contradiction refers to the same proposition P in both positions, simultaneously You are describing quantum superposition, but then you are straddling the classical and quantum paradigms when interpreting the LNC. How man

More ›