win311fwg

8 ms·

151.
by win311fwg 3mo ago
Grass is food. If you don't have animals out there grazing it, that's where you've gone wrong.
152.
by win311fwg 3mo ago
Yes, the term originated as derogatory slang towards the Asian population in the early 1900s, and its use towards them became especially popular during the Korean War. There is no question there. However, as before, the term evolved away fr
153.
by win311fwg 3mo ago
> I might proactively steer newcomers towards your acronym as a kind of reclaiming. Any negative connotations "rice burner" once had was lost when the term shifted towards referring to cars instead of humans. But now re-recog
154.
by win311fwg 3mo ago
There is nothing about LLMs that prevent them from being 100% deterministic, unless you are really stretching the definition. There are implementation shortcuts often used in practice, just as is the case with compilers, that lead to non-de
155.
by win311fwg 3mo ago
> AI is not deterministic, it will be making tons of mistakes. Most compilers are also not deterministic, at least by default, but they don't usually make mistakes. Determinism isn't an important quality here. And if it were,
156.
by win311fwg 3mo ago
AI (LLMs) is typically not run deterministically for performance reasons, but can be turned deterministic if you want it to be. The output will still be probabilistic, however, so you will be no further ahead. Determinism isn't helpful
157.
by win311fwg 3mo ago
All tools require time to learn, but not all tools gain attachment, even when one has committed to learning the tool. From my observation, attachment is formed when one finds something about a tool that feels like a secret insight or advant
158.
by win311fwg 3mo ago
> Am I the only one who’s absolutely shocked that Go finally is embracing generics? Yes. Everyone else knows that they were always expected to be included at some point, as told when Go was first announced to the world: https:/&#
159.
by win311fwg 3mo ago
> Functions exist first to give names to conceptual tasks Right, and conceptual tasks will almost always have information that is usefully attached to an error. There are exceptions, but even in those exceptions you still have to ensur
160.
by win311fwg 3mo ago
> Really wearing the team's t-shirt there Ad hominem is a logical fallacy. > Go was barely proven on the language adoption battlefield when Go heads preverted the direction Docker and Kubernetes were going, it wasn't even
161.
by win311fwg 3mo ago
> In the overwhelming majority of cases, you want to trivially send the error up the stack to be handled There is no case where you would ever trivially send the error up the stack. First, if your function doesn't have any meaning
162.
by win311fwg 3mo ago
> Go doesn't offer that for normal errors and there was no clear path to getting it. It does offer that for normal errors if you pass those errors via exceptions. Although you're right that using exceptions for error handling
163.
by win311fwg 3mo ago
> Reducing syntactic noise is about legibility, not writing ease. Exactly, which said proposal does nothing to improve upon. Despite the reduction in characters it looks exactly the same as the traditional way, offering no way to impro
164.
by win311fwg 3mo ago
Huh? First they said they would: https://youtu.be/rKnDgT73v8s?t=3267 After a decade of nobody coming up with a solution that did turn to believing that Go would never be able to add generics. That is true. The air of defeat
165.
by win311fwg 3mo ago
The problem good developers have is that they develop software people want to use, and software that people want to use eventually requires more help, and once you need help then it is inevitable that you will need to bring poor programmers
166.
by win311fwg 3mo ago
> Go is basically a mix between Oberon-2 and Limbo, which we all know where they landed on the adoption curve. Exactly. You might say that Wirth, Mössenböck, and Winterbottom had some programming language chops, bringing some new ideas
167.
by win311fwg 3mo ago
Presumably you are referring to https://github.com/golang/go/discussions/71460 ? While the proposed slightly reduced the token count, saving the average typist approximately 1 second of time if they don't
168.
by win311fwg 3mo ago
Quite right. If the Go team somehow magically had the right technical background Go would have had generics earlier, but they didn't and weren't going to magically get it, so we're back to the only preventable way was to not
169.
by win311fwg 3mo ago
Does it? It was only preventable by not releasing Go, which isn't exactly the greatest of solutions. As you know from when Go was first broadcast to the world, they hadn't figured out how to make generics fit[1]. It is not like th
170.
by win311fwg 3mo ago
The problem is that don't particularly care about being rich in and of itself. They, not unlike the generations before them, want status. Wealth is only pertinent to the extent that is able to buy status, and they feel that they still
171.
by win311fwg 3mo ago
> making the general population poorer by reducing their buying power Exactly. Also known as a tax. You can make someone poorer by taking their money and destroying it, or you can make someone poorer by letting them keep their money an
172.
by win311fwg 3mo ago
> This will be the sixth time that at least one of us has traveled to hang out with the other. Are these really online friends if you are also recognizing them as real-life humans that exist in the same world you do and treat them like
173.
by win311fwg 3mo ago
There are two ways to tax the people: By destroying money or by creating money. Republicans may generally prefer creating money over destroying money, but that doesn't mean they aren't applying taxation. "Tax cuts" in no
174.
by win311fwg 3mo ago
You may also know of it as standard verification or empirical verification. Regardless of the name, I am sure you can understand the concept as it is exactly of the same intent as formal verification (e.g. you might seek to ensure that a v
175.
by win311fwg 3mo ago
Understood. In dynamic verification, does that same line hold? Or would you say it is it unique to formal verification? If so, why?
176.
by win311fwg 3mo ago
The good news is that humans already exist, so you can already use them. It will give them something to do with AI replacing them elsewhere. You might not like the efficiency of that type of battery, though.
177.
by win311fwg 3mo ago
Specifying that a value must be an integer between 1 and 10 is most certainly further along the continuum than only specifying that a value must be an integer, but both define a theorem about the program that can be validated. How is the la
178.
by win311fwg 3mo ago
The AI SDK being ported was first released in 2023, so it was almost certainly designed/architected by a person. "Vibe coding" wasn't a thing until 2025. However, that person worked for Vercel, so be aware that the desig
179.
by win311fwg 3mo ago
Formal verification is also extremely common in the software design world, to be fair. Most programming languages in use have at least a primitive type system and even those that historically didn't are gaining them (e.g. Typescript, P
180.
by win311fwg 3mo ago
> The promise of formal verification The promise of formal verification (and testing) is essentially the same promise as double-entry accounting. It assumes that if you do the same thing twice that it is unlikely you will screw it up i

More ›