lngnmn2

You see where this comment ended up? That is why.

It is useless to say, but Haskell is a modeling and domain language, it is a sunset of math and highly sugared logic.

The proper place if Haskell code is Fastcgi and batch processing.

It should FFI everything infrastructure related and should be called by nginx or whatever.

Using it as a Java EE with monads is plain, well, let's say "over-engineering".

Brain is conditioned by the sensory input augmented with "verbal knowledge" (how it is encoded is irrelevant).

Religious and mystic experiences work exactly the same way. When many other people around you do strange things they start to make sense.

So, basically, it is fooling of neural nets by giving strong cues or whatever you might call them.

In religion such strong cues are other people's facial expressions and body language.

The brain's neural networks recognize strong signals of "taking positive actions" or whatever.

> more trading volume yesterday than Bitcoin

Well, this is a textbook FOMOing.

And a textbook scamcoin. They shilled it hard before a FOMO chain reaction began. Good job. Good profits.

So, sell it.

And discover that MIT Scheme Erlang, SML, Ocaml and Go are awesome, and others are better not to look.

It's not, when all you get in the feed is a bunch of links to web pages full of ads and crap.

It was supposed to stream full texts.

Why not. My favourite example is Jane Street, of course, especially when they realised that the language is high-level and pragmatic.

On the other side there is over-complicated and bullshit-infested IOHK projects which failed to deliver for years.

Tech could matter a lot.

This is great example of virtue-signalling and rationalizations.

No, typing speed is irrelevant related to content quality. Think of poetry - it is all about finding the right word rather than committing them into writing.

He just plainly typing too much - a thick book fallacy. Truth does not require lots of verbiage, on the contrary, it requires a short, clean, precise, adequate "just right" formulation.

That piece of text in in the link could be reduced 10x without losing anything meaningful (which is very sparse indeed).

Code-reviews and pull requests must be super because they are asynchronous, so the person is spared from unnecessary emotional load and could choose the more productive state of the mind (an appropriate time slot).

Everything asynchronous (in human written communication) is just better.

We, by the way, are not evolved for being constantly in the midst of a crowd.

SEEKING WORK

  Location: Asia
  Remote: only
  Willing to relocate: Sweden or Norway only
  Technologies: Ocaml, Haskell, Scala3
  Résumé/CV: https://karma-engineering.com/lab/
  Email: lngnmn1@gmail.com

I am good at FP and problem solving. Could easily fight top guys here.

I can do lots of different things remotely. This is age of remote, isn't it.

  Location: Asia
  Remote: only
  Willing to relocate: Sweden or Norway only
  Technologies: Ocaml, Haskell, Scala3
  Résumé/CV: https://karma-engineering.com/lab/
  Email: lngnmn1@gmail.com

I am good at FP and problem solving. Could easily fight top guys here.

I can do lots of different things remotely. This is age of remote, isn't it.

This, is, of course, nonsense.

Consciousness implies awareness and perception of the world (and not necessarily self-awareness and ability of introspection).

And life is a result of selection what works and fits by trial and error.

Cells are mechanisms and aggregates of other mechanisms. The more correct word would be a process. Biological processes, which is a biochemical processes.

My friend, the whole "study" is based on false assumptions and consist of interpretation of the data in the way which confirms these assumptions. This is not even science, this is some blog posting kind of crap.

Every bit of observable behaviour could be explained in terms of habitual behaviour and physical pattern matching, exactly what a trained NN will do - it will perfectly accurately separate patterns which corresponds to different quantities, while posses no notion of any abstract concepts whatsoever.

Animals pattern match, but do not have abstract concepts. Well, enzymes do pattern matching but not counting.

How does one show a flaw in a proof or a logical argument? A single contradiction or a plain error is enough. This is the core of science - a single flaw is enough to throw away the whole argument. Not just that, having the lack of basic understanding been exposed, a "scientist" should be marked as incompetent.

Yes, you systematically ban people like me and have narcissistic imposters and bullshitters instead. Millions of them.

This is the consequence of eradication of anonymity and heavy policing to comply with current idiotic pseudo-intellectual narrative of safe spaces or how do you justify it.

The next step would be enforced gender-neutral pronouns or something equally nonsensical.