Dhall is the FP config language you're thinking of, I think.
239 karma · joined January 16, 2014
So there are many particulars that mean pattern matching to a standard board dispute will lose something. I think it's likely many of the primary actors have, at various times, had non-strictly-pecuniary motives. That one side won doesn't mean that the other side was always a farce.
"It must be familiar, roughly C-like. Programmers working at Google are early in their careers and are most familiar with procedural languages, particularly from the C family. The need to get programmers productive quickly in a new language means that the language cannot be too radical."
And not including sum types despite having a sum-type-shaped hole in the language (`if err != nil`).
And some of the discussion about "why no generics" seemed kind of divorced from existing PL knowledge on the topic.
"But what we found with these neural networks is, if you use 32 bits, they're just fine. And then you use 16 bits, and they're just fine. And then with eight bits, you need to use a couple of tricks and then it's just fine.
And now we find if you can go to four bits, and for some networks, that's much easier. For some networks, it's much more difficult, but then you need a couple more tricks. And so it seems they're much more robust."
You can push some of this directly into Python type annotations thanks to https://peps.python.org/pep-0646/.
e.g.
@overload
def mean(a: ndarray[float, Dim1, *Shape], axis: Literal[0]) -> ndarray[float, *Shape]: ...
@overload
def mean(a: ndarray[float, Dim1, Dim2, *Shape], axis: Literal[1]) -> ndarray[float, Dim1, *Shape]: ...These are not comparable numbers. You're comparing "fraction of people" vs "fraction of outcomes". Presumably an eye-roller assigns ~0 probability to "extremely bad" outcomes (or has a shockingly cavalier attitude toward medium-small probabilities of catastrophe).
Adjusting those estimates (only) for inflation, they work out to about $2.14 per gallon in driving externalities.
- Some experts just flatly deny it: "low-expenditure households devote a smaller share of their budget to gasoline than do their counterparts in the middle of the expenditure distribution" --- https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/63747/isgasol...
- Carbon taxes are often less regressive than alternative sources of revenue e.g. sales taxes
- Depends on how the revenue is spent. If, for example, it's used to expand the Earned Income Tax Credit in the US, the overall tax and spend pattern would be progressive.
- The impacts of excess carbon are also "regressive" in that global warming affects poor people more severely. This means that the net effect of a regressive tax which reduces a problem with an even more regressive incidence could be progressive.
Can you help me reconcile that with the data from the USDA as described here? https://blog.givewell.org/2009/11/26/hunger-here-vs-hunger-t...
They describe children in 0.3% of households as skipping a meal almost every month and the number of children that did not eat for at least one day in almost every month is too low to measure.
Regarding ecological issues surrounding the release of sterile TMs, of particular importance is that a reduction in the number of Anopheles is unlikely to have a negative impact on local food chains. According to (Pennetier et al. 2010) there are no birds, fish or other insects that feed exclusively on Anopheles mosquitoes, the only known exception being Evarcha culicivora, an East African jumping spider that feeds indirectly on vertebrate blood by selecting blood-carrying female mosquitoes as preferred prey.
from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alicia_Coupe/publicatio...
"That might sound disturbing from an ecological perspective, but mosquitoes don’t make up a significant portion of any known predator’s diet; there’s just not a lot of meat there. “So far there’s no evidence really that seems to show that Anopheles gambiae is a key species in the ecosystem,” Jonathan Kayondo, a senior research officer at the Uganda Virus Research Institute and a member of Target Malaria’s scientific team, told Fong. “There’s nothing that exclusively feeds on it. So I’m finding it hard to see how that would collapse the ecosystem, because that’s the fear most people have.”