48 karma · joined October 14, 2013
And for the non-pdf-phobic: https://www.jjj.de/fxt/fxtbook.pdf
For my toy example I don't think it is because it's generally easy (in the languages I work in) to overload arithmetic operators on types that are basically constrained scalars so there's no explicit wrapping/unwrapping to do when you want to operate on them as if they were plain scalars.
Maybe you could give me an example of the kind of pathological situation you're alluding to?
They absolutely do have a cost. The question is whether the benefit they bring in implicit documentation is worth their cost.
> Even beyond the DX of readable names, it also acts like a type-checker. By reading the code, you can verify at least the semantics make sense.
I would strongly prefer that the actual type system do this job instead. As a toy example, if a function is only meant to operate on "lengths" (i.e., non-negative scalar values) then that should be modeled in the types of its arguments, not in its name.
I think this is largely the point. The game is significantly easier (for me at least) when I limit myself to thinking about what words would have high co-occurrence in English print journalism.
I'm not so convinced that these are two distinct things. I want coworkers who can maintain their level of skill under extremely hostile, stressful conditions. I'm not going impose those conditions on them, but I can't necessarily control the myriad third parties or circumstances that might.
Second, I claim that the wealthy character in the story above has significantly greater ability than the non-wealthy character to: (1) have accurate situational awareness about disasters (e.g., can distinguish shit actually hitting the fan from shit narrowly missing the fan (possibly via superior sensing apparati, more likely, just by delegating the task)); and (2) have well-equipped (read: expensive) bug-in/out plans in place. Thus, even in cases where disasters are mitigated against collectively as you claim is possible, the wealthy character will be in a better position to maintain their pre-disaster quality of life than the non-wealthy character.
That said, this is all a little too removed from a concrete comparison for my liking. Maybe you have one in mind? Ideally, an example where collective efforts at disaster mitigation basically made outcomes for individuals insensitive to the wealth of those individuals.
It's not so much that the tracing becomes better, but that it becomes feasible at all. Two specific situations come to mind, both MPI-adjacent. (1) Running a PMPI-based tool on code you can't recompile yourself (e.g., you need a Q clearance to see the source, but not to actually execute it--weird I know, but not that uncommon in the DOE labs.); and (2) running multiple PMPI-based tools simultaneously which are composed at runtime via PnMPI.
My understanding is that in IEEE 754 compliant implementations of floating-point arithmetic, commutativity over "+" holds but not associativity. (With the possible exception to commutativity for the NaNs, though I don't remember offhand whether this caveat is necessary).
My use of "we" was merely meant to indicate that our society, through the apparatus of our legislators, has decided that our society is justified in doing harm to certain classes of people and has set up mechanisms for doing this. I was not using "we" in the "me and my immediate peers" sense.
It uses a different approach than superaccumulators, which as far as I know was first explored for the purpose of determinizing parallel floating-point sums by the folks working on ExBLAS (https://exblas.lip6.fr/)
That said, I think we should interpret "how to become a good theoretical physicist" as "how to gain the competencies that are expected of s theoretical physicist."
With an ash cloud large and dense enough to restrict that much sunlight, wouldn't we also get a different distribution of warmed land and therefore different wind patterns?
Edit: That said, I'd be disheartened too and I don't really think your parent's "dig" was justified.