sz

I wouldn't have recognized him if he had.

GHC has an API! http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/GHC/As_a_library

Or you could just un-check "simple passcode" in Settings...

Take the one thing a computer can do better than humans and use it as a captcha? Huh?

I was surprised to see Mathematician as #2. That contradicts everything I've read about math careers on HN.

I've proven theorems in my sleep before. It seems to be a generally accepted thing.

John Cleese gave a related talk which I found very interesting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGt3-fxOvug

Hm, this might explain something. In old B&W videos people's impromptu speech seems much more eloquent than today. I wonder if the luxury of instant text communication has something to do with it.

I'm not sure actually.

Does anyone else get nauseated reading corporate speak like this?

Why are people still talking about this?

It's like complaining that a Lamborghini sucks because the cupholders are hard to reach. I'm sure it would bother some people, but it's not really worth discussing, is it?

On the other hand it's hideous and you would come off as incredibly lazy.

Why not just make your own site? LinkedIn has a terrible user experience.

Obviously whether foregoing a paper resume is okay depends on the company.

How long until the link expires?

Just some immediate first impressions.

- The logo looks small and isolated from the rest of the page.

- The text in the navigation tabs looks strange, maybe it should be centered?

- The boxes with the slight shading are missing vertical borders, which looks unfinished.

- The circles with the prices are not ordered numerically, which was confusing at first glance. Also the text labels in the image are too small.

- The font size for the description paragraphs is too small; looks like fine print.

- The colors for the Buy/Learn buttons at the top are badly chosen; when I hover over one, it looks like they're both active or inactive since they're the same color. There should be four different colors or they should be identical.

- Not sure why "Required" was abbreviated to "Req'd" when adjacent cells have much more text.

I was wondering what subfield coined the label $\Pi_2$, specifically. I haven't looked much into the structure of propositions and proofs per se, and I'm curious about what can be said about it.

"Since is formally a for-all/there-exists ($\Pi_2$) statement of arithmetic, there is a principle that such a proof should be convertible to one without contradiction"

Where can I find more information about this sort of thing?

I was thinking about exactly this yesterday - so much of "media matter" is like junk food for the mind. I wondered if we could start an organic movement but for the content industry.

It took me a while to gain enough confidence to start thinking, "well I was ecstatic about this idea yesterday, so there must be something good here".

Now I try to remember specifically what excited me. Not as a bullet point, but as a vision. What was the cool task I imagined accomplishing? What was I thinking of when I felt like I had the right answer? Usually that's enough to get me back in the same state of mind.

But keep talking yourself out of ideas. That's the only way to get rid of bad ones. Just don't forget the good parts. Ideas evolve; let natural selection run its course.

haha yeah, sorry.

A good read every time. This part stood out:

"In retrospect I realize that in almost everything that we worked on together, we were both amateurs. In digital physics, neural networks, even parallel computing, we never really knew what we were doing. But the things that we studied were so new that no one else knew exactly what they were doing either. It was amateurs who made the progress."

Are users of #1 aware of what's going on?

Is M a function of N or fixed?

I didn't read the descriptions before, they do make it clear.

I was just saying that you can't apply a technique you don't know.

(1) When I see the phrase "known techniques" in the context of math it generally refers to techniques known in the field. Novel techniques are not "known" in this sense. The different, literal, trivial interpretation of "known" makes the word superfluous. That was the motivation for my first comment. In both cases (your point of view being the second) my comment is true; by this flowchart a technique must be known to be applied. The only way I could see someone disagreeing is if they're confused about what "known" means.

(2) It seemed obvious, and moreover too trivial a point to merit more than just pointing it out. I apologize if I've caused any offense.

* To clarify, I don't consider "find a new technique" to be a technique, which is why I said to look at the arrows.

Look at the arrows.

Are you sure? Look at the flowchart again.

I've been looking for something like this!

So the only way to solve a problem is by applying known techniques, apparently.

Fantasically written!

There is a typo on the list monad example; "x <- ys" should be "x <- xs".

There ought to be a browser plugin for the paranoid... surely someone must have tried to make one?