nur0n

I hadn't seen these cartoons before. I had a good laugh :)

More seriously: there are very limited cases where indexing explicitly into an array using literals is The Right Thing to do. It's almost always better to use `map(fn, xs)`, `foreach(fn, xs)`, `for x in xs; fn(x); end`, ... .

If you really wanted to, you can even do:

    for i in firstindex(xs):lastindex(xs)
        x = xs[i]
    end

Julia core devs are aware that Julia does not exist in a vacuum. It is easy to wrap existing C, C++, Fortran, and Python libraries for use in Julia. Julia has such good performance and flexibility that it will not surprise me if the most important libraries get rewritten in Julia. Most people just glue libraries together most of the time (and that's perfectly fine!), but language improvements will mostly be seen by the people who write the libraries themselves.

See:

- https://docs.julialang.org/en/latest/manual/calling-c-and-fo...

- https://github.com/Keno/Cxx.jl

- https://github.com/JuliaPy/PyCall.jl

I believe you are the one lacking context. I'll assume your are not being intentionally malicious and are just naive.

Abuse is almost certainly occurs in the presence of power structures with severe disparity. Children are being placed in the custody of people who lack appropriate training, background checks and supervision. Children can not defend themselves and they are separated from the people who do protect them: their parents. These are sufficient conditions for children to be mistreated; I can't bear to think of what happens when the people who run these systems choose to be actively malicious. These conditions are not only present in these "detention centers" (a thinly disguised euphemism for prisons), but also in places like poorly run orphanages and even some religious institutions, to name a few.

I am disgusted by the lack of empathy when discussions such as this one come up. I could care less by your stance on immigration policy; forcing children into these systems, especially when there is no real need for it, is abhorrent behavior.

- https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/23/613907893... - https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/21/us/undocumented-migrant-child... - https://sputniknews.com/us/201806211065644106-US-Detention-C...

I have noticed this as well. Insights don't come out of nowhere (although they often appear to). In my experience, they are the result of focus and effort over a period of time.

A good review of the changes between 0.6 and 0.7/1.0 is here: https://white.ucc.asn.au/2018/06/01/Julia-Favourite-New-Thin...

`aurman` is a (unofficial?) package manager for Arch Linux. The standard package manager is called `pacman`. Arch User Repository(AUR) is (IIRC) a repository of uncurated packages compatible with Arch.

To put it simply: he is implying that he will check out the book.

Yes. I don't do any scientific computing but I still really like Julia. The speed is there if you need it, but what attracts me more is how "ergonomic" the language is. To put it differently: Julia makes it really easy for me to map my thoughts into code. I have a habit of trying out many different languages across different paradigms and IMHO no one has come close in that regard. There is no one thing I can point to that is responsible for this. I believe it is due to a cohesive set of design decisions by the creators. The only downside is that currently there are not many Julia 1.0 packages available for general purpose programming (understandable given that 1.0 just came out).

Disclaimer: I recently started contributing to Julia (but I wouldn't have bothered in the first place if I didn't think it was so cool ;) )

Based on historical data, how accurate would it be to say that a recession happens every 7-10 years? What percent of recessions(for some definition of recession) follow this pattern? Are there different patterns for different kinds of economic/political environments? Does anyone know of a good analysis that a layman could understand?

I read through parts of this book a few months back. I also did not like using that parser because I wanted to keep external dependencies to a minimum. Writing a parser for s-expressions turned out to be relatively simple. You can check out my implementation here: https://github.com/00vareladavid/scheme/blob/master/src/pars... . I believe the technique is called "recursive descent parsing".

Reminds me of: https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/thomas-jefferson...

Thank you! I was not looking for anything in particular. Julia's design is everything I've been craving from a language; good performance seemed too good to be true. Due to never having worked on large systems, my judgement is of limited use. Your feedback convinced me to take a serious look at Julia. Looking into the discussions regarding Julia's implementation (so cool that they are easily accessible on GitHub/Discourse) convinced me to commit to learning it.

EDIT: grammar

I'm strongly considering Julia as an alternative for C/C++. A few questions if you don't mind: * How does Julia's GC play into the performance characteristics of these systems? * What tools does Julia offer for fine-grained control of memory? * It appears that Julia uses a rich runtime, do you notice it "weighing down" on performance? * Do you ever feel the need to drop down to C/C++ for hot code paths?

It seems that work has already started: https://github.com/martanne/vis.

Perl 5 and Perl 6 are two different beasts. Perl 5 is closer in spirit to Awk.

readme says "an unholy union of POSIX Shell and Common Lisp"

Honest question: does 'N' usually exclude the control group? Total human participants was 18, 6 for the control group.

I agree that N is too small to warrant such hubbub.

Not sure why anyone would suggest WhatsApp(or any FB tech) as a method of private communication.

I'd say encrypting raw text is perfectly fine in situations where secure communication is critical.

Are people brilliant because they don't care or do they not care because they are brilliant? Seems to be a little of both...

Also see: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences, specifically the Indian cobras.

Even with good intentions, predicting outcomes is difficult. When you donate to a charity(or any organization), you are giving them more influence while delegating decision making. The best option seems to be: find something you really care about and get your hands dirty.

This! The primary benefit of this book is in learning to understand recursion. Lisp just happens to be a good environment for naturally expressing recursion.

Thank you. The most value I get from these kinds of books is to become aware of important concepts so that I can actively work on improving them. In other words: what I seek from these books is the mental framework that experienced developers rely on, the rest is mostly noise.

Its interesting that I have developed my own model that closely resembles this (although it is not as complete). Its annoying that there is so much good information out there(like your article), but its largely inaccessible if you aren't familiar with the relevant jargon.

Something I struggle with is specifying my emotions sufficiently. Does anyone know of a complete reference? Something that includes common causes would be best (such as: stuck on a problem you can't solve -> frustration). I have seen some relevant books but they tend to be more gimmick than substance

Not sure I follow; I'm pretty sure her net worth is obliterated by now

I think the problem is one of breadth v depth. If you specialize too much, then its probable that you will fail to reuse knowledge from different fields. If you focus on breadth too much, then you will not have enough deep knowledge to build something of high quality.

I would characterize people who are described by your quote as people who prefer breadth of knowledge over depth. This is a good quality to have in order to avoid tunnel vision. The downside (as you mentioned) is that it takes more willpower to maintain prolonged focus on an objective.

I believe that I tend to fall in this category of people and its annoying when society demands to see immediate, obvious results. Small, incremental progress is less risky but it seems(to me) that the rewards are also minimized. Its difficult to judge whether the 'dreaming' one is doing will realize as concrete, positive changes.

The main practical takeaway is to prefer iterators over pre-generated arrays.

Also, TIL according to the C standard, 'main' is not a reserved identifier! (https://stackoverflow.com/questions/34764796/why-does-declar...)

If anyone can clarify: I assumed that the gcc read literals directly into their 'target' type, but it seems like some literals (such as '-1u') are read as signed integers first then typecasted to the the target type?

I understand hacking to be the opposite: understanding a system so deeply that you can invoke unintended behavior.

I hope this is an exercise in playing devil's advocate and not true naivety. Do you really think telcos care about these issues? They are a business and not a socialist government.

Other comments have stated their goal clearly: increase margins from existing infrastructure.

If fair repartition of resources was their goal, why not make that an explicit part of the laws they want to introduce? Why do it in a roundabout way? Presenting a wall of 'possibilities' only serves to obfuscate their true goal.

Would you let 'the markets figure out' your water supply?

I feel like this issue needs more clarification.

Say you have complete disbelief in free will. Without free will, you just carry out a path which is already predetermined. In other words, you just carry out your destiny. It can be the case that you are destined to 'try to do good'. You do not choose to do good, you do good because it is in your nature.

More generally:

Regardless of belief, people are confronted with choice points where they have to choose A or B. Those who believe in free will believe that the choice is determined by an internal force which they associate with 'themselves'. Those who do not believe in free will believe that the choice is determined by some external force.

People make decisions in each scenario, the debate is over the ultimate force which drives the decisions.

In addition to the limitations stated by sibling response, you would also need to solve the problem of image classification before you could start on real world footage; the ai in the paper was given the videogame sprites in addition to the raw footage.

I think depends on the project, no? You first specify your dependencies, then provide a way to use the dependencies to build the end project.

If you don't have to specify the dependencies or the build process to the user, then you can get away with the build process not being well defined. Docker is a win for 'easy installation', but I wonder if it degrades the quality of projects which rely on it?