SkiFire13

I graduated from a not so incredible university and we had multiple such rooms. Teaching assistants and some tutors helped supervising the exams and it wasn't easy to cheat without getting caught.

It has a Rust-like syntax, enums, matching, traits, etc etc. Yes, it also loses a lot of special characteristics of Rust, but it has to be different somewhere. Moreover a lot of people like Rust as a high level language, i.e. ignoring the lower level capabilities and lifetimes, and this seems to be a direct response to that feeling.

If you are into constructive logic then this will only work for proving negative statements (where indeed the definition is the same as what a proof by contradiction would give you). For positive statements you won't get back a direct proof term of your initial statement, but rather a proof of a double negation of it.

My understanding is that the "logical bits" view breaks down for unions, because the nth logical bit could be at different offsets depending on the union variant that's considered active.

Everyone talking about malware in dev dependencies as if dependabot only raises issues about that, but it does not. It raises warnings about all sort of "vulnerabilities" irrespective of the threat model.

Even worse, it incentivizes randomly updating dependencies, which is what actually allows supply chain attacks.

> I don't buy the notion that tests do not test relevant skills.

> In my long career I've noticed a strong correlation between SAT scores and academic performance as well as job performance.

A test doesn't need to test the relevant skills for that, it just needs to test _something_ that correlates with academic performance and job success.

Do you need a blockchain for that though? There are cryptography schemes to share a secret (e.g. the recovery keys) between multiple parties, requiring at least N of them to get together to recover the original value of the secret.

> A bad abstraction would at least have had one fire in one place

That's true only for "good" abstractions. Bad abstractions will often require you to change code in all the places using it, requiring you to understand how all of them work and what are their requirements, _all at the same time_.

> smart contract-based process for recovering ids if keys get lost or hacked

How would that even work?

And you did not notice how many things require Google Apps/Play Integrity? Heck, most people don't even know how to install apps without the Play Store.

$30/quarter doesn't look like a "free tier" in the first place

> I've been thinking about this in art. Is it the end result that matters, or the process of creating it?

What is the "end result" you're talking about here?

Programs are complex beasts, you cannot just quickly look at them and get an idea of what's they are actually doing. You might look at the behavior of the program in some limited circumstances, but that will make you blind to all the other situations where bugs will likely hide! In the end a code review is looking at what the "end result" is, and it requires quite a lot of effort!

So without knowing what the end result is, how can you justify the effort for such code review? And that's where the process comes in, as an indicator of what to expect.

> also shift the responsibilities to the AI agents as well

That's not gonna fly most of the time.

Quite the opposite, GPUs running at a stable rate degrade less than GPU that continuously hit highs and lows (like it would happen on a gaming rig).

Note that you can do this yourself manually for single pieces of code by using `is_x86_feature_detected` [0]

[0] https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/std/macro.is_x86_feature_de...

> Many people think their claimed TAM is total fiction, and attempting an actual realistic TAM relies far more heavily on starlink.

Then either the TAM for Starlink is ~20x bigger than reported by SpaceX (I doubt they would downplay themselves in such a way) or the whole SpaceX TAM is ~5x smaller (much more realistic, if not more than that)

You're trying to justify SpaceX's valuation using Starlink, but it's clear from the S-1 that it makes up only for ~5% of SpaceX estimated TAM.

> Remember that rates and bond prices are inversely related. Anyone who holds bonds in this market will likely lose money.

That's assuming you sell the bonds before their end.

That lines looks very cringe indeed, but the guy has some crazy good blogposts on SIMD stuff.

> SpaceX is obviously majorly owned by Elon, but it’s also owned by regular employees, a bunch of private investors and other funds that regular people invest in.

Is it really owned by them if Elon retains most of the voting rights anyway?

I remember Android Studio's WYSIWYG ConstraintLayout UI builder being pretty good for responsive layouts.

This is what people say after every new model is released though.

Most of your cash back money actually comes from fees that merchants pay. In the US and especially for credit cards with cash back those fees can be quite high, and unfortunately it's illegal for merchants to discriminate against credit cards with high fees.

Is this comparison made with the cost of transactions in the US or elsewhere? For example in Europe interchange fees are generally much lower, especially for debit cards which are also more common than credit cards.

Index funds don't represent "the entire market" anyway. They are a diversified selection of stocks choosen according to some rules.

> GHC’s default algorithm works greedily: it grabs the longest run of independent statements from the front, emits it, and repeats.

I'm not sure I follow. If I had to write a greedy algoritm for this I would do a topological sort in O(n²) and then set the level of each expression to one bigger than the maximum level of its dependencies (again O(n²) worst case)

> which means 'retail' investors are going to have perhaps 5% of their portfolio in it

If I'm not reading it wrong though NASDAQ introduced a 3x multiplier for low-float stocks like SpaceX is most likely going to be (and maybe OpenAI and Anthropic too if they see that it works). A 15% exposure is then going to be pretty big.

This doesn't reflect my experience.

You still pay for university depending on your income (technically what's called ISEE), although this is usually capped at around ~3k€/year

There are still tests for enrolling in STEM degrees, most notably the TOLC-I test, especially for those degrees with limited numbers.

I have also never seen beer or wine taps in my university.

It is true however that some exams are generally hard and a lot of people fail them. Some are for good reasons, others because the professor is a dickhead. As always there is a lot of variability.

As I said, this is how the economics of pensions work.

But the social contract does not care about that.

But I'm paying taxes for my pension, and my kids will pay taxes for theirs.

I know that the economics don't actually work like this, but this is the social contract.