bitdizzy

The use of marijuana for chemo patients is to manage the extreme nausea that accompanies the treatment. It's not about the munchies per se.

While a useful metric must be implementable, not every implementable metric is meaningful. Is the metric being discussed here meaningful? What is it useful for?

While yours are important questions they're somewhat outside of the scope of the topic. The submission is about a measurement of Britain's carbon footprint and the post you were replying to was talking about how that measurement may or may not be particularly helpful.

I don't think it's a particularly good argument that we should accept one method of accounting or another because we like or dislike its policy implications. What is an honest and clear method of accounting in your eyes?

If the standard of living in the UK depends on imports from countries that heavily emit CO2's, then in what sense has the UK achieved a modern standard of living at a low rate of CO2 emissions?

How did you turn a comment on method of accounting into a screed against "modern standard of living" and for living "one with nature"?

There was a whole scandal about this, wasn't there?

I'm not downvoting you. I can't downvote anyone. I don't think I have enough points to downvote. If I didn't want to talk to you I wouldn't be replying!

> This is the garbage pedantry that I warned you about earlier. I'm choosing the generally accepted academic definition. Hopefully you're not one of those people who can't comprehend "generally accepted" without an expose into axioms and different obscure branches of math.

I think you should look into domain theory it is one of the most celebrated discoveries pertaining to the semantics of functional programming languages. And maybe you'll understand that from a programming point of view, what a function is is much more flexible and subtle than you think.

> Yeah I'm not going to reply to your shit any more. HN really needs to change the policy of not letting parent posters vote others down.

Would it help if I pretended that you downvoted me? Every time I see my imaginary internet points I will subtract 5.

I don't take wikipedia to be authoritative about anything but I'll bite.

> Functional programming is sometimes treated as synonymous with purely functional programming, a subset of functional programming which treats all functions as deterministic mathematical functions, or pure functions.

Well, obviously in this context the author of the submission wasn't using that definition. So you coming in and dismissing the conversation because sometimes people mean "pure functional programming" when they say "functional programming" is clearly erroneous. I know when people make this conflation, often when they're talking about Haskell. When talking about ML, no one would take that synonym. Context matters.

I just looked, you provided a set theoretic definition of functions, the wikiwand one. You chose a poor definition for the topic at hand. In most mathematical settings it would be a perfectly fine definition, but not here. Context matters.

Here are the problems with it: It assumes an interpretation in sets when there are a plurality of interpretations of functions qua functional programming which are not compatible with set theoretic models. For example, functions in homotopy type theory have higher dimensional structure than just being elements of a set. Functions in domains have more structure than just the extensional mapping from inputs to outputs. Your chosen definition also includes non-computable functions which are simply not admissible in this context.

So your definition is simultaneously too restrictive and too lax.

You seem to be confused by the existence of multiple definitions and how they are appropriate in context.

You chose a definition among many and then dismissed the submission as "confused" because it does not meet your definition.

I noted that your definition would preclude ML functions from being called functions. Your response was that ML wasn't purely functional, but that doesn't make it not functional. The pure in "pure functional" doesn't "to the exclusion of non-functional", it is simply a narrower category.

Considering that ML is one of the most impactful functional programming languages both in theory and practice, I think it's right to call that absurd and dogmatic. If you take it as a personal attack that I called your argument absurd, I don't know what to say. Maybe grow a little bit of skin?

> You on the other hand... haven't even stated your definition yet.

I don't need to provide a definition to find a flaw in yours. I did not come into this submission looking to smugly dismiss the topic at hand with my obviously irrelevant preferences for terminology. You did.

If you decide to dismiss a position by saying that it chose the wrong definition, you're not contributing anything useful. "Pure" functional programming is not more functional programming than "Functional programming", the adjective specializes it and makes it more narrow. I don't really care what a wiki article says. I can run a survey of my colleagues if you want?

As for calling me a junior, well, you don't know how much experience I have, do you? It's probably more than you, though. I've used and participated in the development of functional programming languages for over a decade at this point.

Unsolicited advice: Sophomoric pedantry isn't a good look.

That is a very interesting claim on their part considering that they hold the private PGP keys used by their service. I'll have to figure out what they mean by this.

Edit: Ok I see. They store the PGP keys encrypted with your password. Like you said, they could just as well inject javascript to phish your password from your session.

But this does seem to mean that if one uses their API directly it would be possible to securely use their service. Thanks for the heads up. There is a third party open source bridge that reverse engineers their API. I think I will look into it to see how authentication is done.

https://github.com/emersion/hydroxide

> No I'm using the mathematical definition of a function.

Which mathematical definition? A "box" is not a mathematical definition. There are multiple mathematically precise definitions of "function" possible. Yours is none of them. Some of them accommodate objects that model mutable state.

I don't think many (any?) PL theorists or functional programming practitioners would agree with your dogmatic stance. Where are you coming from with all this?

You're making an argument from definitions that would exclude ML from being a functional language, which is absurd.

> The problem is that ProtonMail could violate your privacy by sending you Javascript that gave them your keys and you'd never know about it.

I think we don't agree on how proton mail works. As I understand it, they already have my keys. You can't even give them just a subkey, it only works if you upload a set of PGP keys including the master secret key. What is your understanding of how it works?

As for your other concerns, unless I am conversing only with myself, the attack vector for my data is the entire e-mail ecosystem. Even if I only talk to people who use encrypted email, they are also part of my threat model, even if I don't trust a provider with my keypair. e-mail is simply not secure. It wasn't meant to be secure; security cannot be bolted on top.

What is your threat model and how do other providers or self hosting achieve your desired level of security?

To be clear, I am connected enough to security-conscious social media that I think I would hear about it if someone found it out. I agree with you that someone who isn't at least a little bit diligent would miss news like this.

Let me also reemphasize that I don't consider email to be a secure or confidential medium of communication at all, even with PGP. I only want that my inbox is not sold to advertisers and the security practices of my provider aren't utter garbage. Maybe the fact that they're in Switzerland helps me in some ways, but if I had a state adversary I wouldn't bet on it.

PGP isn't any better on the first point and on the second point, I would bet the money in my pocket that GPG (being the most dominant implementation of PGP) is far more complex and bug-ridden than Signal's cryptography or implementation are unsound.

I use proton mail just for the privacy guarantees enforced by social pressure on their brand. They hold your PGP keys (you can't give them a subkey of your own private master key) so there's no reasonable security there. In general, I don't think PGP encrypted emails provide much security anyway. If I need to send a message securely, something like Signal provides better cryptographic properties like forward secrecy.

All I know is, I would hear about it very quickly as soon as Proton Mail is discovered to violate my privacy, and that's all I can expect of email. To be honest, the fact that their API is not open sourced and I have to use their web client or mediocre IMAP bridge would make me seek alternatives if I were to reconsider email providers. It would have to be one that has as strong of a privacy-conscious brand, or self-hosting.

What is RoW?

Microwaving frozen bread slices for 30-60 seconds (depends on how much bread and how powerful your microwave is) works like a charm too.

This language of matching brackets is also called the Dyck language and its syntactic monoid is the bicyclic semigroup, which is an interesting example of an inverse semigroup. Edward Kmett gave a talk on programming with these sorts of algebraic structures that some might find illuminating: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGi5AxmQUwU

Inverse semigroups are used in the geometry of interaction to give a parallelizable interpretation of lambda calculus. I don't have a great introductory reference. Here's some people who have implemented a system based on the theory: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/mathematical-structu...

Sorry for the citation dump, I'm short on time and I thought they would be interesting to those who found this submission interesting.

References

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyck_language

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicyclic_semigroup

> Astute observers will see some parallels with other groups.

I'm a little naive and curious about this. The examples that come to mind are HR departments I've worked with. What were you thinking of?

I should have demonstrated my picks. I didn't just look for citation but also looked for at least some nontrivial review of the results of the paper^.

I pick these two papers. The first is literally about adjunctions pertaining to combinatorial species whereas the second devotes an entire section to reviewing the theory and stating results that it uses in a way that I don't really understand. I'm going to read the first paper though because it's relevant to my interests :)

Rajan. The adjoints to the derivative functor on species

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0097316593...

Panagiotou, Konstantinos; Stufler, Benedikt; Weller, Kerstin. Scaling limits of random graphs from subcritical classes.

https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.aop/1474462098

The fact that I have to go rummaging around for these examples kind of proves your point, doesn't it? I don't think category theory will lead to any fantastic new results in the fields we're discussing, but the bar is quite low for it to be useful as an organizational tool.

^ I searched for the word functor of course! :)

> Respectfully, I disagree. The question of what's mainstream and valued by the community is empirical and can be answered by looking at what's published in the leading combinatorics journals. And anyone can check those out and see that categories are basically absent. So as a sociological fact, I maintain it's far from the mainstream.

I think it is also a reasonable interpretation to take "mainstream" as "pertaining to the main subject matter of the field". Anyway, I think it is the case that the mainstream of combinatorics or probability is yet so big that a particular researcher or even group of researchers can be comfortably in the mainstream and yet have never cared for or even heard of some other line of research that is also mainstream.

The founding paper of combinatorial species [1] has hundreds of citations including many in what I gather are top journals in combinatorics, and even some in the Annals of Probability. So, what are we to make of that? Some people who are serious enough about combinatorics or probability to get published in serious journals have read, perhaps understood, and maybe even taken seriously some of these categorical ideas?

In any case, I respect your viewpoint. In my youth I was a bit category-crazy, trying to use it to organize all of my mathematical knowledge. I'm much more prudent about it these days but I'm still an optimist that we will find more unifying ideas in mathematics through it.

[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0001870881...

This all hinges on "mainstream". For example, in combinatorics, combinatorial species are a vast organization of the all-important concept of generating function. They were developed by category theorists and are most tidily organized along categorical lines. If you don't think this is close enough to mainstream, I can't dispute that. It's a value judgment.

There is often an undercurrent of category theory within a subject that maybe most people are not privy to. Anything to do with sheaves or cohomology (which I know factors into some approaches to PDEs) are using categorical ideas.

Every generation, it seems, has some contingent of serious mathematicians who consider category theory marginal in their field of interest. But every generation, that contingent grows smaller as more mathematics as practiced is brought into the fold. Maybe they're coming for you next :)

I have the Remarkable 1. It's the kind of jank hardware whose flaws you come to find endearing because the device as a whole is so good to you. I immediately ordered a Remarkable 2 when I caught wind of it. I'm going to give my Remarkable 1 to a friend or relative and hope it brings them as much joy as it did me.

Oh good call on the oxalate content! I'll be on the look out for that now, though it seems that I've been using low oxalate varieties of kale by preference.

I've been having a salad either as a whole meal or as a side every day as well. I still think I would benefit from eating more vegetables but only experiment and observation will tell.

You can keep a journal of your wellbeing to establish a baseline and then start making changes to your diet. For example, adding a green smoothie (mostly leafy greens, some fruit and nuts) to my breakfast every day seems to have ameliorated my IBS after a month or so. I'm still trying to add more vegetables to my diet because it seems like it's actually physically difficult to eat more than an optimal amount of them.

But your personal experience is the most direct data you can gather about this complex topic. Beyond generalities, diet is more likely than not idiosyncratic to each individual.

Nutritional yeast, tamari, and dried mushrooms goes a long way for me.

I don't think the quote in the OP is talking about Plato's works or conduct, but how Plato figures into a modern person's, Geoffrey West's, relationship to history. In that context, I don't understand the relevance of your comment.

Length of support is not my only concern, but even if it were, I would prefer to have a phone that works until its hardware is literally incompatible with the network, even if I have to keep it up to date myself.