Reminds me somewhat of Vulkan. I think the trend of making the actual specification of something lower level and less convenient is rather logical. Why burden implements with a load of convenience functions when that could be left up to libraries?
Performance and size can easily be added to any specification, maintainability is not a problem if you never have to maintain it, UI/UX are design issues not code issues. If you specify a UI, it will have the UX you want. We can already do UI creation with visual editors.
import Mathlib
def Goldbach := ∀ x : ℕ, Even x → x > 2 → ∃ (y z: ℕ), Nat.Prime y ∧ Nat.Prime z ∧ x = y + z
A short specification for the proof of the Goldbach conjecture in Lean. Much harder to implement though. Implementation details are always hidden by the interface, which makes it easier to specify than produce. The Curry-Howard correspondence means that Joel's position here is that any question is as hard to ask as answer, and any statement as hard to formulate as it is to prove, which is really just saying that all describable statements are true.
If you are interested in multi-byte access to GCed arrays, something similar can already be accomplished. You can hold the array data in Wasm linear memory, then have an object that wraps a pointer to it, and using JS code, associate a finalizer with that object that frees the related section of linear memory. It's essentially how FFI memory is handled in most native GCed languages.
> This perception, for what it’s worth, runs counter to statistics: Between 2000 and 2022, the years for which data is available, only 0.5 percent of startup venture funding went to LGBTQ+ founders.
The article seems to admit that its central premise is entirely made up. If a conservative 3% of people are some flavour of gay, then they are 6-fold underrepresented, at least in this area.
Describing it as a market is not entirely correct. The clothes these people wear are garbage. As a species, we produce more clothes than we could ever wear. I am reminded of a story of a charity that accepted clothing donations for the victims of an American hurricane, and immediately had to stop because their warehouse filled up. Many clothes are not even worn once before they're thrown away, and one of the cheaper ways to dispose of them is dumping them on 3rd worlders. It's quite dystopic really the underclasses who dig through our trash.
That was because you could make money by turning old things into new things. Not so with garbage disposal, a service for which you almost always have to pay.
Neither can most planes given the cockpit is sealed and locked. I suppose one could strategically try to take it down over a populated area, but that doesn't really seem reliable. The truth of the matter is that people can smuggle bombs onto aeroplanes relatively easily, and you don't see many blowing up. And it's not even entirely clear that planes can always take out buildings. The twin towers only collapsed because of the slow burn of jet fuel heating and weakening the structure. The impact alone wouldn't have been enough.
Are we to worry about train terrorism also? Shop terrorism? A person might bring a bomb to any crowded space, it simply is not practical to check all of them.
What's interesting about this is that a human would hypothetically produce a similar error, but in practice would reject the question as beyond their means. I'd assume something about supervised learning makes the models overestimate their abilities. It probably learns that “good” responses attempt to answer the question rather than giving up.
> Polanski also worked as a hypnotherapist. In 2013, a journalist for The Sun requested a hypnotherapy session from him to increase her breast size and body image self-confidence for an article in the paper. Polanski featured in the published article, in which the journalist claimed that her breast size had increased. Polanski has apologised for his involvement, saying that the idea came from the client, that he did not charge for the session, that the therapy was meant to help with bodily self-image rather than physical enlargement, and that the article did not accurately reflect the situation.
You really just have to read this to see that what you're saying is inaccurate.
Social media apps do not compete in terms of code quality, but user-capture. People go to X because their friends are on X or there is someone on X they want to follow. The sole valuable aspect of any social media company is how many people use it. That's why, when Musk bought Twitter, he discarded the branding, the software engineers, rewrote the backend, and ditched the moderation. The only valuable thing that he was interested in buying was the captive users of Twitter and the embedded value in their social relations and generated content.
RSS is signed because it's served over HTTPS which involves an SSL certificate exchange. It is also real time. You fetch the feed and get the most up to date content on it. You can host any XML document you want on your website and there are W3C recommended standards that allow the integration of rich data structures within web pages.
The sole interesting part of ATProto is the aggregation part, which can also be solved in the same way with existing web technologies, that is a web indexer. Google allows you to set up notifications whenever a link is created to your website, which is essentially the unique offering of AT. None of the ideas it presents are new, but they are all incompatible with existing Web technologies. That is why I dislike it. I already have a website. I already have a set of RSS feeds that I follow. I do not want another website hosted on a strange and convoluted service in a bajillion different JSON records when there is a folder of XML on my computer called “my-website” which I can copy to any server and have all I need. Yet, in the name of a federated internet, the BSky folks have herded people away from the real distributed internet and into a crappy Twitter knockoff. Perhaps there are some business-unaware programmers very passionate about the idea of a distributed web and I commend them for that but it already exists and, in every real aspect, they are harming it. If this ATProto thing is successful in its goals, it will cause much inconvenience to me and greatly diminish my ability to publish my works on the internet.
AT Proto seems very overengineered. We already have websites with RSS feeds, which more or less covers the publishing end in a way far more distributed and reliable than what AT offers. Then all you need is a kind of indexer to provide people with notifications and discovery and you're done. But I suppose you can't sell that to shareholders because real decentralised technology probably isn't going to turn as much of a profit as a Twitter knockoff with a vague decentralised vibe to it that most users don't understand or care about.
I think it depends what you mean by language. There is a kind of symbolic logic that happens in the brain, and as a programmer I might liken it to a programming language, but the biological term is defined differently. Language, as far as it is unique to humans, is the serialisation of those internal logical structures in the same way text file is the serialisation of the logical objects within a programming language. What throws most people here is that the internal structures can develop in response to language and mirror it in some ways. As a concrete example, there is certainly a part of my brain that has developed to process algebraic equations. I can clearly see this as distinct from the part that would serialise them and allow me to write out the equation stored internally. In that way, the language of mathematics has precipitated the creation of an internal pattern of thought which one could easily confuse for its serialisation. It seems reasonable to assume that natural language could have similar interactions with the logical parts of the mind. Constructs such as “if/then” and “before/after” may be acquired through language, but exist separate from it.
Language is, therefore, instrumental to human thought as distinct from animal thought because it allows us to more easily acquire and develop new patterns of thinking.
Would such a license fall under the definition of free software? Difficult to say. Counter-proposition: a license which permits training if the model is fully open.
The essay mentions the father being gay, reasonable to assume he said it. Unless you think he was bisexual, but I'm willing to bet you don't actually think that and this is just you being silly and you do actually think he's gay.