throwamon

Any recommendations on materials that teach these subjects?

I don't think it's your mistake. It seems HN automatically removes certain leading/trailing words from titles so as to reduce clickbait but it doesn't seem to be very smart about it.

If you assume all trees have no value in their context and/or no intrinsic value and/or the same value as any other...

https://github.com/machow/siuba for one

> When you turn a tree into a house you create value.

Of course, because the tree has no value, right? As long as you call things you don't care about "externalities" you can trivially prove anything is a positive-sum game.

Nice. Now I'm curious, is there a list somewhere of other projects Google open sourced after abandoning?

The right pronunciation is Luigi board.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=15nNY7uofNw

It's been possible in other languages for ages, and some of them don't even require parentheses or a semicolon!

I might just be biased by selective attention, but it seems like more and more of these are popping up lately.

I feel like we will eventually recognize a variant of Greenspun's Tenth Rule as common wisdom:

> Any sufficiently complicated build system or configuration management system contains an ad hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of Nix.

(Although to be honest it might make more sense to replace "Nix" with "Guix"...)

This is common in the functional paradigm, although syntax and semantics varies in sometimes important ways among languages.

There's a long-standing TC39 proposal to add it to JS. It's interesting to read it to see examples of the aforementioned differences.

https://github.com/tc39/proposal-pipeline-operator

I mean, Excel does have LET and LAMBDA now...

"Treat ideas like cattle... Except this idea."

> Spaced repetition and incremental reading don't have to be a conscious effort

> The valuable part looks like to be in the effort of understanding, thinking deeply and widely and summarizing.

Which part of this is not conscious effort? You just made a stronger case for such automated systems, especially for people who don't have good memory or abnormal levels of discipline and motivation.

> they should care about [...]

And there's your problem. Regular users do not give a rat's ass about your shoulds. In addition, for example, I've never seen any serious UX bugs in Telegram, and I've seen many in Element. Regular users care waaay more about that than some vague notion of "reliability".

What does this prove? If you have lots of data and dimensions, I bet you could just as likely find distributions that are roughly 50/50, 60/40, 90/10, 100/0 if you looked for them.

Maybe in the same sense that meth or krokodil are "disliked".

Sure, but I bet they don't have to watch all kinds of traumatizing events as they do it.

> I even know the percentage roughly.

No, you don't. This "principle" is not a law of physics, it's just a rule of thumb that may or may not be wildly off the mark for an arbitrary distribution. Its common usage is like statistics horoscope.

I did, but I shouldn't have because I was too lazy to explain what it is.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33311958

Nix + home-manager. Boom.

If you only send to space people whose dream already was to go to space, of course they're going to have a strong reaction when they do. That's like observing that Olympic athletes have strong reactions when they receive the gold medal and calling it "the Olympics effect".

Two plus two equals four is true, but not funny!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4Ph02gzqmY

Good news, the link provided ticks all your boxes:

- You didn't have to search for it

- Someone's (Rich Hickey's) opinion

- He has worked with Clojure

- He has worked with another Lisp dialect

This is the one question for which I still haven't understood the answers. But not just because Clojure is dynamically typed, and more because of its concept of "it's just maps". More specifically, how do you know for sure that a map that holds "everything" and has been passed around hundreds of functions will have the field you want with the shape you want at a certain point? Even with specs, how do you even reason about that?

Has it been demonstrated that that extra DNA has no function or are you just assuming "onions are less complex than us"?

> You can easily have a bunch of generations you just think are ok.

Unless you erase your darlings: https://grahamc.com/blog/erase-your-darlings

So you're telling me you don't run an ML text classification model on it like we all do here?

The second easiest way is to read the comments before the post.

Promising contenders include algebraic effects in OCaml and JVM's Project Loom.

> new

Erlang has been around since what, the 80s? Elixir is "just" Erlang with a different face and extra features.

> restrictive

which is? Functional programming? Immutability?

Interestingly, Erlang is often called a "true" object-oriented language thanks to its actor model. It's incredibly powerful and flexible, pretty much the opposite of restrictive. Just for a simple example, you can inspect, debug and modify your program while it's running.

From your comment it just seems you're not familiar with it.

I'm sure you understand sarcasm.