thdhhghgbhy

The new online safety rules are already being used to shut down government criticism. How it works is their new elite protection squad, if someone is deigned an influential critic of government policy, trawls through your social media posts until they find something against the laws. A lot of government critique is coming from the working class here now, who have virtually no political representation in the UK. As you can imagine, some of these social media posters don't mince their words, and end up getting caught out and arrested.

It's different. Effect systems claim to be a 'major evolution' that 'enforce modularity'. But they don't really enforce anything other than the modularity provided by standard oop classes or if in a fp language, function modules.

But you have user defined effects don't you? E.g say I define an effect ReadsFromDB, it doesn't necessarily do what it says on the tin, and there is no way a compiler can check that it does. It could read from the db, and send some rockets into space. So a consequence of that is that these "effect systems" just amount to giving names to blocks of code. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

Very clearly written, thank you.

Very naive question, but what is the difference between this and XWayland?

Can it actually take and make calls, and hold a battery charge yet?

Is there not an idiomatic way to write proofs in Lean/Coq/Agda though? Idiomatic in the sense that once you learn the common idioms/tactics proofs become a degree more readable.

He didn't really fully explain why he chose Lean over Coq or Agda though.

>Can the compiler check that a function is pure besides its assigned side effects?

The compiler can't. It is up to the programmer to make sure that a database effect doesn't, say for sake of example, write out to a file also.

So in the end this is just a novel new way to organise code.

Just seems to be a way of organising code really.

Typical Haskell coding post with no mention of order or efficiency of the algorithm solutions. The thing is, even in basic coding quizes, if the interviewer is worth their salt, they will ask about how to improve the efficiency of the naive solutions first put forward, like the palindrome answer in this post.

What is the order of sumNToTotal?

Great work.

I did one once for Barclays for a Haskell role in London. A whole evening of work and they never even sent me a rejection email.

Vite is trying now too.

Unconvinced. I believe we'll go the other way, further into the theoretical aspects, in particular program verification.

Seems like a clumsy version of dependency injection in Haskell to me.

Discovered in 1817, but we weren't using pesticides at scale until the early mid 1900s.

If Jia Tan's PR was approved, malicious artifacts could go to github releases just as easily as in a tarball. Struggling to understand the point made about github releases being a security mitigation.

Don't apologise. Programming is about the process not the person.

Now all AI tools have to do is spot errors made by themselves.

I miss writing Ruby.

The hybrid server render, then hydration step is too magical for my liking. There's a bunch going on in there that would be very difficult to debug, if some mysterious error at this stage of the app were to present itself. I prefer either wholly SPA or serverside, can debug and understand the whole thing.

Text summarisation already frequently misses things, sometimes gets them completely backwards. Can't convince myself this will be any better.

Seems wasteful to me.

Haven't written C# for 8 years, but Visual Studio used to be dog slow. But that's the only criticism I can think of, love the language. I remember when ReactiveX came out, C# became close to unbeatable at that point.

More like by 40. My relationship with even my best buds from school became empty or non existent after years of marriage and kids.

I'm more extreme, I dislike all dark mode, including code. Shreds my eyes, no idea why. Have tried a zillion themes, just can't be one of the cool kids.

Okay, might be definitional, but when I think of 'first class', I think of something baked in to the language. So in Haskell's case, in the Prelude I suppose.

Thanks, I've followed along with a lot of your posting on the Haskell discourse. One thing regarding this matter:

>well, you point out the analysis of its flaws from the effectful documentation. That's correct.

Thinking deeper about this, that there is essentially no way to fix this issue with StateT, because of the type choice, the monad, the composability requirement, all conspiring together to not be undone, does that signal something deeper that is wrong with the flexibility of Haskell, that we can progressively paint ourselves into a corner like this. Could it not happen again, but with another late breaking requirement, for effectful, or bluefin?

Basically StateT uses Either to model either the application state or an error. So if your application throws, you lose the current state forever. They sort of painted themselves into a corner with this choice of type, there's no real way out now.

This explains in more detail:

https://github.com/haskell-effectful/effectful/blob/master/t...

I agree loosely with what haskman above says about creating relatively bug free applications, the guard rails are so robust. But those same guard rails mean you can paint yourself into a corner that it is harder to get out of without imperative state, case in point above.