> a right not to have idiot parents interfere
The only reasonable default assumption is that even "idiot" parents have more interest in the survival and well-being of their own children than the vaccination industry equivalent of the Sackler family.
171 karma · joined October 20, 2017
The only reasonable default assumption is that even "idiot" parents have more interest in the survival and well-being of their own children than the vaccination industry equivalent of the Sackler family.
Programs have (static) types, data does not. Static typing removes correct programs from the language. Try this in some ML-like language:
let selfapply f = (f f) in
let identity x = x in
selfapply identity 42
Sure. Since it is socially so much easier to be a secretly skeptic climate congregationist than an open climate denier, I'd bet one such correlated trait would be extreme honesty.
The search engine coughed up a PDF. I randomly opened it (p. 173) and read up to this author-provided "TL;DR" on p.176:
The main reason, however, for thinking that sociobiology is false, is the simple one I gave at the beginning: that it is obvious that human beings are the most intelligent and capable things on earth. But genes are not human. Therefore (etc.).
Uhhhm. Really?
That glosses over the question of how to name the streets, a question quite conductive to nasty political fighting. Maybe that already happened.
Crowdsourced via the flag button, which acts as a "superpowered downvote" even though it's not presented as such.
> see if he was misrepresented
Did you find out whether or not he was misrepresented?
That widespread perception could have been part of the problem.
You can give the semantics of everything that happens in a safe d-t language in terms of church encoded tag-value pairs and yet the programmer can't break the abstraction because abstraction-breaking operations are syntactically unavailable.
It should count as testament to the success of dynamic typing that the abstractions are so safely enforced that you can squint and suddenly the whole language is semantically founded on them.
> What syntactic methods are used in dynamically "typed" languages?
Interesting. You may have unwittingly provided one of the best justifications for the term "dynamically typed" I've seen so far.
That's because operations that violate a (safe) dynamically typed language's chosen set of abstractions (built using bits, church encoding, whatever) are syntactically inaccessible.
Almost all languages. There is one language that can be typed without a type, the empty language.
Since the empty language contains no programs, it follows that "Untyped Programs Don't Exist".
Here's the gist: Human bad. Capital good.
Fancy a prison term in one of the more enlightened European jurisdictions, or Canada?
Maybe that's partly because Haskell can easily become a bit too elegant. Between all the currying and combinators, the type helps to understand code "top down", i.e. when you don't have studied and memorized all "bottom up" component parts.
"Flag" on HN has devolved into an overpowered downvote button.
They're also not evolved to deal with TV news.
Conservatives will come to understand that big capital is not a conservative.
Hipp:
> ... also learned that apparently no one feels the need to help novice CoC writers feel welcomed or safe.
Apparently! Good to see he's still got a sense of humor.
Then, a very enlightening response from a Social Justice Entrepreneur:
> There are folks who you could have hired to help you write and implement a code of conduct.
Hey, it's a living!
Certainly not in the way "statically typed" is usually understood.
Containers (outside of specialized arrays) aren't parameterized, so every time you extract a value from a list or map, the "static type" is the top type. SBCL remains essentially unityped with islands of type propagation for better performance of (mostly) numeric code.
Maybe being online turns anything into Reddit/HN.
On the other hand, word was most members are inactive and only a small percentage turn up at IRL events at all, i.e. strong (self) selection effects.
Lack of reporting from others is no reason to believe Breitbart was first to know, e.g. https://mobile.twitter.com/jacknicas/status/1040014678263386...
> Doesn't that bother anyone?
I think it actually helps insulate Google from closer scrutiny of its monopoly position and deplorable business model. Why would any self-respecting country suffer an all-powerful ad-financed private Alphabet Agency? Because they think Evil is "on our side".
I don't think so. Curious detail about that tail: The females don't have it.
Analogously, people who don't get tripped up by bullshit might be better (more convincing) at spouting self-serving bullshit.
Framed that way, I can believe it.
The alt-right was on the verge of defusing the "racist" accusation as an effective weapon in the culture wars.
The NYT's Sarah Jeong stunt effortlessly made alt-right types literally crawl over each other to be first to accuse the NYT of "racism", in the process affirming the supreme moral severity of the accusation to themselves.
Very smart play on the part of the NYT.
Funny. If explaining infinity to a kid had been my problem, I'd have tried hard to avoid calling infinity a number.