xigoi

19 ms·

511.
by xigoi 8mo ago
In the Turing tent, you converse witt the other side instead of just reading static text. This makes a huge difference.
512.
by xigoi 8mo ago
> your inputs lack formal syntax, and that's fine It’s not fine. I program using formal syntax precisely because I want the computer to do exactly what I tell it to.
513.
by xigoi 8mo ago
> No. Floating number arithmetic is deterministic. You don't get different answers for the same operations on the same machine just because of limited precision. There are reasons why it can be difficult to make sure that floating p
514.
by xigoi 8mo ago
You can only specify software into existence if your idea of what you want it to look like is as vague as your specification. Sometimes this is the case, sometimes not.
515.
by xigoi 8mo ago
This argument is based on the notion of proof irrelevance – if a theorem is true, any proof is as good as any other. This is not the case for computer programs – two programs that implement the same specification may be very different in te
516.
by xigoi 8mo ago
C and JavaScript both treat integers and floats as separate types. In Python, ints and floats with the same numeric value are considered identical for almost all purposes.
517.
by xigoi 8mo ago
This has nothing to do with partial orders. Mathematically, a value is always equal to itself, no matter if it’s from a partially ordered set.
518.
by xigoi 8mo ago
FTFY: “There’s this incredible new technology that allows evil megacorporations to get richer and control the world while destroying the beauty of the Web.”
519.
by xigoi 8mo ago
This is exactly what’s funny about the paradox – we both think that our choice is completely obvious. My argument is that since the predictor is always right, the situation where you choose two boxes and you get $1001000 simply cannot happe
520.
by xigoi 8mo ago
Assuming that the predictor is always right, there are only two possible scenarios: • You take one box and get $1000000 • You take two boxes and get $1000 The choice seems quite clear to me.
521.
by xigoi 8mo ago
> Reading between the lines, your comment sounds a bit like "because of the draft men have no bodily autonomy and therefore women shouldn't have it either". More like hallucinating between the lines, since they didn’t say
522.
by xigoi 8mo ago
It’s not the right tool for the job if, for example, you need a tuple-indexed hashmap, which I needed for a web app recently. TypeScript does not help, it’s just a layer on top. Also I hate the inconsistent syntax and the footguns inherited
523.
by xigoi 8mo ago
> Only for traditional webpages, and for those JS/TS is perfectly fine I hate JavaScript and don’t want to use it at all. I want WebAssembly to allow me to write “traditional” webpages using a different scripting language.
524.
by xigoi 8mo ago
The difference is that you cannot use someone else’s instance with your own domain. You have to get your own instance, which is much more expensive and creates a lot of duplication.
525.
by xigoi 8mo ago
Is code not a form of communication?
526.
by xigoi 8mo ago
The DOM is what you want to interact with most of the time…
527.
by xigoi 8mo ago
> Personally I'm not a fan of this because apart from string conversion the JS shim is not the performance bottleneck that people think it is A benchmark in the article you linked shows a 2× slowdown.
528.
by xigoi 8mo ago
I am talking about when instance X defederates with instance Y, so the users on X cannot see content from Y, even if they took no part in the decision.
529.
by xigoi 8mo ago
> wasm will remain a small niche. At the least for the, say, close future. But probably forever. I’m still waiting for being able to access the DOM from WebAssembly, so it’s possible to do something useful with it without JavaScript glue
530.
by xigoi 8mo ago
> Point at a problem, and measure the cost of solving it. The problem with this is that AI will create worse code that is going to cause more problems in the future, but the measurements won’t take that into account.
531.
by xigoi 8mo ago
> I have bosses building small POCs via vibe coding They are not building anything; they are paying Anthropic to do it. > Lastly, many, many open weight models exist. Good luck running them when the megacorporations have bought out al
532.
by xigoi 8mo ago
Gmail, maybe. There are a plenty of providers that respect your privacy and don’t read your e-mails. Also, I’d like to see if anyone has ever been banned from Gmail for sending an e-mail saying that hating all men is not nice.
533.
by xigoi 8mo ago
E-mail providers allow you to use a custom domain, so if the one you’re using suddenly goes away, you can just point your DNS records at the new one and that’s it. If the ActivityPub instance you’re using suddenly goes away, you can say goo
534.
by xigoi 8mo ago
Well, obviously you’re not going to be on a platform you dislike. I have signed up for Mastodon several times, but always ended up finding the instance dependency off-putting. I wish for a protocol where the instance mostly doesn’t matter a
535.
by xigoi 8mo ago
If many people did not want to read other people’s controversial opinions, we wouldn"t be having this whole debate.
536.
by xigoi 8mo ago
No. A spam filter still allows you to view the e-mails and reply to them if you want to. Also, I would certainly not want an e-mail service where the spam filter is based on the admin’s political opinions.
537.
by xigoi 8mo ago
Mastodon is a federated service, like e-mail. Would you use an e-mail server where the admin reads messages delivered to your inbox and deletes the ones they don’t like?
538.
by xigoi 8mo ago
A broken clock is right twice a day.
539.
by xigoi 8mo ago
No, it’s when you decline to federate content that some users don’t want (and many do).
540.
by xigoi 8mo ago
Mastodon does not have content promotion. It’s more analogous to the air that transmits your voice than a theater stage.

More ›