171 karma · joined October 20, 2017
If you find a live claymore in the middle of the company meeting room, exploding it can be avoided by circumspect behavior.
If that's all you do about it, you might as well start calling it "boss".
Common Lisp has a (CONS α β) type for cons cells with member types α and β, but its LIST type is defined as (OR (CONS T T) NULL), basically more of a binary tree type, where T is the Common Lisp "any" union of all types.
A useable (LIST α) type would be something like μβ.(OR (CONS α β) NULL), but that's not expressible within standard Common Lisp. I expect it to very hard to infer too, especially with CONS cells being mutable.
In that case, everything extracted from a list is T and you'd have to get that warning you mentioned above.
Such warnings would very likely be false-positive, unless Common Lisp programs are buggy as hell most of the time—assuming that would be the real FUD, no? Therefore, the non-FUD conclusion is to expect a high rate of false-positive warnings in typical list-using programs.
TBH, I suspect those false-positive warnings you mentioned aren't bona fide warnings, but some kind optimizer stream-of-consciousness log stream.
If some part of your program extracts values from a heterogeneous list and calls foo on one of them, SBCL will not be able to statically guarantee that it is a FIXNUM at runtime. It can't reject the program either, that would require seriously subsetting the language.
Common Lisp offers optionally unsound static typing.
(SBCL doesn't change that, that's why it inserts runtime checks.)
> Complex definitions tend to be wrong when first written down. In fact, not only wrong but nonsensical. Most programming errors are not subtle!
Static type systems will tend to find those bugs. They're not subtle!
Running the code—just once—will also tend to find those bugs. They're not subtle!
Are you sure UBI would actually be against "conservative" interests?
With UBI, it's hard to justify salaries for much of the redistributive bureaucracy.
With UBI, it's hard to have open borders as well.
Most of them, that's one of the major reasons you'd want to do it. The means-testing bureaucracy being so expensive all by itself, you might as well give everybody enough to live and get rid of the bureaucrats.
Sure, but the real problem is how well it works. Humans eagerly eat it up because their behavioral heuristics aren't adapted and get gamed. Humans want it and enjoy it and can't get enough, even though it sucks up their time without tangible benefit.
Reducing the problem to "capitalism" is like saying the only problem humans have with opioids is that the Sacklers get filthy rich and therefore humanity would be fine if only everybody could get the stuff for free at a friendly neighborhood government drug outlet.
> The warrant lists specific items. This was not respected.
Assuming that fact, was it legal?
[1] https://blog.torservers.net/20180704/coordinated-raids-of-zw...
The problem is that whenever we think OO, visions of Alan Kay and Smalltalk float into our heads and suddenly Everything Is An Object. Numbers "know" how to add themselves to other numbers, strings "know" how to print themselves to standard output...
...insanity ensues. We wake up, write a blog post about how OO failed and discard it all, only to repeat the cycle when we notice that some of the sane things we're doing look entirely as if we were doing OO.
Would forcing them to make bad-faith arguments really improve the place?
Once upon a time, the late musician Prince decided to change his name. Turns out that no, you don't always "get to decide" and even fans don't follow your every whim: Most ignored his choice and without much "humbleness and deference" started referring to him as TAFKAP—"The Artist Formerly Known As Prince."
In this world, however, we observe that the Behaviorists, who were uniquely concerned with holding psychology to strict scientific standards, where ganged up upon and hounded out of the field. The hounders can't be trusted.
What you're misrepresenting as "fanaticism" is simply a strong but justified emotional reaction to what the debunking of Zimbardo implies.
An emotional reaction triggered by the revelation of a revealed hostile bias against normal people just like themselves by formerly trusted scientists, formerly trusted journalists, and other formerly trusted opinion leaders.
Interesting times ahead.
Shareholders shouldn't (unless there's clear mens rea, such as when they set up the corporation in order to break laws) but officers of the corporation should, and probably already are.
You may have misunderstood how rogue optimizers obtain their license to miscompile.
It is not by assuming that the "behavior left undefined is impossible".
As boring and tautological as it sounds, it is by assuming that the operation with "behavior left undefined", when it actually happens, has undefined (and therefore arbitrary) behavior.
That would describe it if they...disabled it outright.
But they made HT user configurable, just like any other performance tuning knob.
> shouldn’t music history writing and teaching be done in the same backwards direction?
No, that doesn't follow, because we are now talking about obligatory learning of the rest of Music History, which will be what I just experienced for most of the author's text: An endless litany of names, names, names, names, names, some arrows drawn between them, some dates and places attached.
It doesn't matter which order you teach me all the rest of Music History. It doesn't get better that way, although it probably doesn't get worse, either.
Regarding nil safety, did Pascal allow something along the line of the following?
var x: ^int;
...
x^ := nil;
Swap(x^, y) let a:[Int] = [1] + [2] + [3] + [4] + [5] + [6] + [7]
> here is very little to no evidence that static typing actually increases safety
Well, C is statically typed, Python or Common Lisp aren't. We need better categories than "static/dynamic".
It's also an easily reversed experiment, which suggests that the naysayers may fear success more than failure.
There are downsides to MS owning Github, but Google is in a whole separate universe of Evil.
So the answer is: Move out, don't hesitate, and if there's no other viable choice, yes, move back to Gitgub.
Win7 is a focal point of some importance: It's where developers who don't want to be pushed into app store indentured servitude join up with the Windows compatible systems, Wine and ReactOS.
Everything before Win7 is not a focal point because it's too old. Everything after Win7 is not a focal point because nobody can handle the update threadmill. By elimination, it's Win7.
Win7 is not the new XP; it's the future of stability-oriented Windows compatible computing.