extrabajs

> I'm not surprised that the agents sent fake invoices, as that is pretty much aligned with the prompt of making as much money as possible

Is it though? Because it doesn’t seem to have paid off

> I feel that the starting point of the experiment is a bit flawed

This is from the first paragraph in the abstract:

> Exogenous melatonin has been shown to improve sleep in individuals with sleep disorders, such as insomnia and delayed sleep phase disorder. However, research on the effect of exogenous melatonin on sleep in healthy young adults is limited.

I guess you get to choose between reviewing it yourself or wasting someone else’s time

I don’t think this is a good comparison. Ada (on which Spark is based) has every safety feature and guardrail under the sun, while C++ (or C) has nothing.

Not really, no.

A control? This is just a list of incidents, not an experiment.

You mean like consoles?

> lacking the skill set to leverage AI

It possible that your job is simply not that difficult to begin with?

> They were very inconvenient.

They were also very affordable!

They must’ve had a really robust kind of CDs wherever you lived, then. Like everyone else, I wore out a lot of discs simply by storing them outside their case.

Statistically significant... sample size? Support the hypothesis?

What is Fig. 1 showing? Is it the value of the integral compared with two approximations? Would it not be more interesting to show the error of the approximations instead? Asking for a friend who isn’t computing a lot of integrals.

Guessing from the text that they’re running the (interactive) bytecode compiler + interpreter version of OCaml, which is much slower.

I see what you mean. But would you not experience the same sort of issue simply from redefining types in the same way? It seems this kind of destructive operation (whether on types or terms) is the issue. As someone who's used to ML, it seems strange to allow this kind of thing (instead of simply shadowing), but maybe it's a Lisp thing?

I don’t see the connection to dependent types. But anyway, is ‘redef’ part of your language? What type would you give it?

One point that the article is trying to make is that even something in PRF can give rise to a very long-running computation.

I agree. Logitech makes some products with replaceable batteries: I have an Ergo M575 trackball (their low-cost trackball) and it uses a single AA battery that lasts over a year for me when being used daily at work.

https://www.logitech.com/en-us/products/mice/m575-ergo-wirel...

Can you name one that had a 24-bit palette?

I feel like there’s way too much color for this to be ‘retro’. It seems you are limited to using 16 colors at once, but those colors are drawn from a 24-bit palette unless I’m missing something.

The problem isn’t that the type inference can’t figure out that it’s a number (it can). Subtyping makes inference difficult. There may be a function somewhere which takes arguments that could be made to accept a string and an int32 (or whatever other number type that literal could be).

It sounds more like a cautionary tale against bypassing APIs. What part of this is related to formal verification?