firethief

That might have more to do with the variety of screen resolutions than progressive loading per se

Fighting with the borrow checker is just a phase you have to get through, it will click. The need to write anything that can't be done without unsafety is rare (probably never unless you are writing a data structure library).

That's the typical approach to varints except optimized for hardware with 9-bit bytes. It's not the kind of thing that dedicated instructions can make faster, or we'd be using them all the time.

> Indeed, it's true, horses don't create demand, but neither do unemployed humans.

Unemployed humans don't create supply. Incomeless humans don't create demand.

Surely it would be easier to use neutrinos?

We don't know how much it changes. We don't have much information on the difference between the ratio of $measurement0 : $measurement1 between the two groups. Once everyone is vaccinated (antivaxxers don't count, they get what they get), symptom rate is all that matters. But in the interim months, transmission rate from vaccinated sources is incredibly important, which is partly determined by infection rate among vaccinated.

You haven't noticed a slightly higher risk of heart attack? That's not very surprising

Coffee is not a diuretic if you consume it regularly

Interesting. That doesn't seem to be specified in the RFC1122 standard or the Linux ip(7) docs, but it's an explicit special case in the kernel (ip_route_output_key_hash_rcu):

        if (!fl4->daddr) {
                fl4->daddr = fl4->saddr;
                if (!fl4->daddr)
                        fl4->daddr = fl4->saddr = htonl(INADDR_LOOPBACK);
                ...

Here I am naming my machines like a chump when I could be memorizing their numbers like oh yeah, I went to MIT

0 is 0.0.0.0, which is not a valid address for most purposes. Some programs, like iputils ping, have special handling for that case (i.e. using it as an alias for the unroutable host address); some programs, like FreeBSD's ping, do not [1]. Unlike most of these address tricks, it's not standardized, except that treating it as a normal address is technically disallowed.

1: https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/99336/how-does-ping...

Hard enough bread keeps for years: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardtack

Yeah it's not that palatable, but we're talking about a survival strategy. It's biscuit or death.

Depression != suicide. Depressed people don't usually kill themselves, even under modern circumstances where suicide rates are elevated because means of easy suicide are widespread[1].

1: https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2020/06/handgun-owner...

Humans are not so logical. They are also known to be much worse than they think at reporting their own experiences[1], and prone to shared delusions, especially under stress[2]. There are always wild rumors under circumstances where reliable information is scarce[3].

1: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-... 2: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_psychogenic_illness#In_... 3: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin_was_a_mushroom

To add another anecdatapoint, I had exactly the same thought. It kind of makes sense; I think of ADHD as being a matter of intrinsically-driven attention rather than motivated attention.

It seems society's tolerance for mortal danger depends more on the cause of the risk than its magnitude. I guess the occasional gas accident is one of the acceptable reasons for people to die.

There is no way to make a stove safe in the face of incorrect usage. I wouldn't be able to judge whether flame interlocks should be mandatory without any statistics about the frequency of this type of accident.

> but even the evaporated vapor from a pot of simmering soup can make it momentarily angry.

It sounds like it can't tell the difference between water vapor and harmful pollutants. Not that it needs to for it to do its job, but the machine may not be a good indicator of actual pollution levels.

Sugar.

That would never make sense to do. The atmosphere is heavily enriched with CO2 already, so plants don't need help obtaining it. If you want to grow plants in an area where water is so scarce you have to import it, but you have oil, don't burn your money: sell the oil and buy water.

This will eventually lead to The Whorf Effect[1]. Nice work while they can get it though.

1: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheWorfEffect

You don't have to be root to read snapshots. It would be nice if every fs operation was a micro-snapshot (like an undo tree), but in practice frequent scheduled snapshots work pretty well. (If it didn't exist 15 minutes ago, you can probably get it back)

It does. If you care about your data, you're running ZFS

Use /proc/meminfo. What could a caching service possibly care about the bit of memory that is reserved for system use? It's not getting its hands on those pages under any circumstances.

There is no interface for that information because at the level of abstraction at which userspace applications operate, that information has no meaning.

> The more of the language you lift into the parser (decidable! easily-analyzable memory bounds!), the less you need to worry about types.

Doing the easy cases of type-checking at a different time doesn't allow you to worry about types less, because you are still doing that work; just at a different time. Making it necessary to pass type information between phases increases the amount of worrying about types.

> As a trivial case consider a language where `5 + ""` would fail typecheck. But why even get so far? Why does your parser accept `lit-term := lit '+' lit` and not `lit-term := [str '+' str] | [ num + num ]`, etc.

This approach increases the complexity of parsing so much that your trivial example is wrong. What good is `lit-term` in a language with different expression-trees for different value types? You need something like `maybe-str-expr := [maybe-str-expr '+' maybe-str-expr] | [function-call] | ...` -- where everything is `maybe-`, because enough type information is available to determine that certain things are wrong, but not enough is available to ensure everything is correctly-typed. We could strictly improve on this situation by increasing the scope of the parser, to include looking up the types of items so that it can fully type-check the tree and accept only validly-typed programs. We can further improve the situation by splitting the parser into two phases: one that just identifies the lexical structure of the input, and one that does the type-checking. Let's just not call that part a type-checker -- it's part of the "parser" now.

If software developers aren't engineers, why are we judging this person's engineering? I think this case is an argument that software developers are engineers, even when their employer fails to see it that way

Because the parser can't typecheck "ident '+' ident", so why make it vastly more complicated only to overlap with a later pass that is necessary anyway?

The parts of this that are fully-baked aren't about parsing or type-checking.

  - the trivial language given doesn't solve anything
  - dependent-typing is more type-checking, not less
  - preferring internal iteration over indexing is several degrees removed from type-checking issue
  - on E: dynamic typing requires type-checking at runtime
  - DSLs are not at odds with static typing

I like this essay. It's a walk through a space of ideas guided by a what-looks-interesting greedy algorithm, along the lines of an "essais" [1]. But I think it's stretching awfully hard to fit the theme it started out with.

1: http://www.paulgraham.com/essay.html

You don't have to kill them to eat them, as long as you aren't eating all of them. A lot of poultry live in conditions where they have no use for wings or thighs anyway.

> It is worth pointing out that this strategy can likely overfit on the data that you have used for training: when you change the track, your car may not behave as good as before. In other words: the coefficients are only good for that specific track(s).

More generally, I think this approach is only suited to "static" courses, which only matter in contrived demos. Any real use of a steering algorithm requires reacting to conditions that can't be predicted a priori; e.g. if you have to avoid collisions with other cars, and one car is controlled by a human player, every run is effectively a different track and overfitting like this would not be an option.