tree_of_item

I don't consider myself a Chinese troll, but I'm going to downvote you for trying to guilt people out of downvoting you.

Sure, being continuous is cool, but your parent is absolutely right that calling anything about this "biology" is way out of line.

I think you're being downvoted because it wasn't clear at all what you were talking about, if someone is not familiar with the picture. It just seems like you went on a random rant. Your follow up comment was much more informative about your point of view.

I don't really understand the lesson behind "Control the agenda" or "Be the agent of chaos".

> Use these underlying power dynamics to control the agenda

How did Stalin do this, exactly? What topic did he fight to avoid?

> If you’ve ever been an A student in a group project with a C student (or vice versa), you know this game.

Know what game?

A quick thought: when a customer enters the code and the doors open, can they somehow mess with other people's food? How do they prevent this?

I'm thinking of numerical optimization that uses algorithms inspired by nature but very different from the current crop of neural networks, while still taking advantage of GPUs, gradient descent etc.

Why do you say "self congratulatory" and not "communicative"? You are assuming your conclusion: that it was snobby. But it wasn't. It was just informative, provided, yes, you knew what the words meant.

The author is communicating with other people who know about the space of programming languages, and describing Haskell in a particular way to show its surface area.

> Really, I feel like everyone who is going to read that article will either already know that, or will have no idea what that sentence means.

Yeah, that seems to explain the reaction to it here. But I'm not sure writing things you expect your audience to understand is such a bad thing. This is probably just the wrong audience for the post.

> This is an explainabrag

It's not. Maybe it seems that way because you're not familiar with the terms, so it seems like someone trying to name drop all the stuff they know? But if you are familiar with the terms, it's just informative, and serves to situate you in the space of possible language designs. It's a lambda calculus as opposed to a process calculus, polymorphic as opposed to simply typed, lazy as opposed to strict etc.

Yeah, "those guys" who try to enforce their software's license. The nerve.

The commentary is on topic for a thread about product advertising. Consider what an Apple product page looks like today.

> Am I the only one who finds it concerning that they capture like everything and persisting it just for the sake of having it and finding a use for it later?

I am pretty sure this has been a standard practice for at least a decade now. Isn't that what the "big data" meme is about? Store everything, because you can always get more computational power and statistical techniques to extract value from it later on.

> Nothing, but Edge has 2% markedshare so what effect will that have?

Okay, so what effect does Edge moving to Chromium have? If you didn't care about Edge due to its marketshare then why does it matter what engine it uses?

> Not to mention Google gets carte blanche to basically control Web Standards as they see fit

People keep repeating this, but it is not true. I addressed this in my OP and yet here you are repeating it again. They do not get a free license to do whatever, because other people have the code.

This is just so strange, I didn't expect the developer community to succumb to FUD and hysteria like this.

Pull request? Huh?

More and more I'm convinced the alarm is just due to a bad mental model of how code works. There is no pull request, there's just Microsoft building whatever they want.

Microsoft has already adopted Chromium for e.g. VS Code. They made the obvious choice based on what software they've already been writing.

In peril how? Google is the one giving Mozilla money. What is perilous about more people adopting an open source Google project?

I really do not get it, Edge moving to Chromium changes absolutely nothing wrt Mozilla's "peril".

> Google is the one creating a web essentially bound to whatever Chrome does, supports, or doesn't support.

Why do you think this? What is stopping Microsoft from changing the code?

I really think the alarm about Edge adopting Chromium is silly. Microsoft is more than capable of forking the project, so using it does not give Google more control over the web.

What exactly do people think is going to happen? If Google starts doing strange things thinking they can because "everyone uses Chromium", then downstream just won't adopt those changes, and then there will be two Chromiums. All the panic about a Google "monopoly" of the web is absurd. Google lost the ability to do anything like that the moment they open sourced the project.

I really think the alarm about Edge adopting Chromium is silly. Microsoft is more than capable of forking the project, so using it does not give Google more control over the web.

What exactly do people think is going to happen? If Google starts doing strange things thinking they can because "everyone uses Chromium", then downstream just won't adopt those changes, and then there will be two Chromiums. All the panic about a Google "monopoly" of the web is absurd. Google lost the ability to do anything like that the moment they open sourced the project.

Microsoft would be the one forking Chromium in this case, so I really don't think that's true. Microsoft is more than capable of doing it.

Is Microsoft not capable of adding whatever they like to Chromium? I don't understand.

Because it takes very little effort and adds convenience for your users, that's why.

The alternative of doing a full API takes much more effort and therefore has little chance of adoption.

I don't think that's true. Where did the old Lisps implement something like Datomic or Spec? Where did the old Lisps focus on immutability and composition? They didn't, they were generally imperative, even though they had "functions". Even Scheme is much more mutable than Clojure.

Absolutely. I don't see why the author brushed off the maintainer's responsibility so casually.

> lets roll for a bit with the assumption that a small amount of extra care on Tarr’s part could have avoided this mess.

Are you kidding? The bare minimum of not just handing a repository under your name to a random stranger is apparently a hard to fathom concept for this author.

I'm not gonna read all your code, and I'm not even sure if this is your problem, but just as a pattern match based on what you said: for System F, only the first and second ranks have decidable inference, not the whole thing. Inference in the first rank is often referred to as the "Hindley-Milner" algorithm; you can infer types for the second fragment but I'm not aware of an implementation. After that it's undecidable.

To put that another way, if `forall a.` introduces types (it's like the big lambda), then you can only have a type with `forall`s on the left on the outside. So:

`forall a. forall b. a + b` is a type but

`forall a. a -> forall b. b -> c` is not a type since that `forall` isn't all the way on the left in a chain like the first one.

If you're not in that fragment, and you're trying to infer types, you're gonna have a bad time unless you've got something exceedingly clever up your sleeve.

So `ForAll` should not be one of the "Type" type constructors. It should be its own type, like

    # The int is the number of variables bound, then the type is the type that uses them
    data Scheme = Int Type
    data Type = 0 | 1 | Var Int | Product Type Type | ...

> Don't be a dick.

Don't worry, I won't.

> iterative code

I'm not really sure what that is. But I notice OO is unique in that "you don't understand it" is always the main defense. The trouble is that, when people can't even agree on a definition of OO, it is genuinely not clear that there is anything to understand. There is always some OO best practice that is ill defined and contradicts the advice yesterday. No one from OO land seems to enjoy math very much so you don't get precise definitions, you get "patterns" and "I know it when I see it".

Maybe you should go back and read it slowly, as it was a good argument.

> again IMO, demonstrate that the author never really understood OOP.

This is what they always say...strange how OOP is the one paradigm no one ever seems to understand, no matter how much is written about it. Seems to me like there isn't actually anything to understand.

Except when you're vaporizing it and there's no smoke.

The last sentence shows that they, Nature, are seriously suggesting that there is something wrong with defining sex based on observable sexual characteristics. This shows they are willing to put ideology over science: the only reason to suggest such a thing is ideology.