Theo Honohan
Interested in the roots of design
ChatGPT: "You have written code that relies on the identity (cos A + i sin A)^k = cos(kA) + i sin(kA), so I'm going to assume cos(kA) = cos(A)^k"
I've recently started using jj to version the little coding experiments I work on.
Whenever I come back to the code I try running it, and then, if it works, use "jj new" to 'bank' that version. The risk that the working copy is in a broken state seems to be something that must be checked and that only good processes can avoid. Maybe I should be calling "jj new" as the last thing I do before walking away, but that seems counterintuitive.
"A more nuanced approach would differentiate between a function that just happens to be written in a different language, and one that actually performs an effect."
This is very suggestive to me. It reminds that you can have a procedure that uses mutable state, or even one in a really hairy imperative language, but have it provide a pure interface (as with Haskell's ST). A quicksort function, for example.
RE: @theohonohan@graphics.social
Another 1k employees gone, including at least one senior functional programming guy.
Deposit Return Schemes (for bottle recycling) are surprisingly tech-heavy. Instead of the RVM dispensing a physical token or charging up a card, it prints a simple paper voucher and informs a central database that it has done so. An EPOS then has to contact the same database when the voucher is redeemed.
An alternative system, "Digital DRS", puts unique codes on containers which are scanned by the consumer for instant credit (they must then recycle the container?) https://re-universe.com/our-projects/digital-drs/
What would be the closest analogue of Core War on the Harvard architecture? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_War)
If someone follows nobody on Github I just assume they're a raging egotist, same as I would if their social media profile looked like that.
This feature (custom emojis on the Fediverse) was news to me: https://codeberg.org/fediverse/fep/src/branch/main/fep/9098/fep-9098.md
The statement "the model was wearing an expensive dress" has an opaque reading, where the speaker is assumed to know nothing more about the dress. It also has a transparent reading, where the speaker is assumed to have a particular dress in mind. There's also a middle case where the speaker knows that the model tried on several expensive dresses, but doesn't know which one they were wearing at that moment. It's a restriction of the set of possibilities. https://people.umass.edu/partee/MGU_Web_13/materials/Handout-Kusliy_1up.pdf