ScottBurson

Why is it too strong to say that functional point update operations on strings are not provided, when you seem to confirm that the supported way to manipulate strings functionally is to convert them to lists first?

I did think about cache-friendliness and made them as much so as I reasonably could, mostly by trying to minimize levels of indirection; but pointers are inescapably involved, and there are limits to how cache-friendly such data structures can be.

For instance, each CHAMP node is a single CL vector; the header occupies the first few slots rather than being a separate allocated ooject.

If you see this — have another look — I think I've improved it.

Okay, I buried the lede :-)

Good suggestion, thanks.

Actually, formal verification could help massively with four of those problems — all but the first (UI/UX) and fifth (requirements will always be hard).

A change in the API of a dependency should be detected immediately and handled silently.

Reliance on unspecified behavior shouldn't happen in the first place; the client's verification would fail.

Detecting breakage caused by library changes should be where verification really shines; when you get the update, you try to re-run your verification, and if that fails, it tells you what the problem is.

As for interconnected systems, again, that's pretty much the whole point. Obviously, achieving this dream will require formalizing pretty much everything, which is well beyond our capabilities now. But eventually, with advances in AI, I think it will be possible. It will take something fundamentally better than today's LLMs, though.

Dark chocolate.

I've done breathwork for years, and at some point the tetany simply stopped happening and hasn't returned.

The model genuinely believes it’s giving a correct reasoning chain

The model doesn't "genuinely believe" anything.

The thing to understand about the LVT is that we are pretty much all already paying it; not to the city in which we live, but to the previous owners of the land we live on. When we buy a house, we have to pay the previous owner a certain amount for the land. That amount is the present value of the expected income stream that could, hypothetically, be realized by renting out the land. Divide by the number of months in our mortgage term and multiply by the interest rate, and the result is our effective monthly LVT.

All George is saying is that that money should be going to the city (or other controlling locality) instead of the previous owner, because it's the city that created the value in the first place.

The plural is "corpora" :-)

there should have been some kind of error handling

This is the point I would emphasize. A kernel module that parses configuration files must defend itself against a failed parse.

Do you really think Putin would hesitate to arrest him if he did that?

Snowden knows he is being watched closely. I suppose that is itself a reason to take what he says with a grain of salt, but I certainly don't take his silence on the Ukraine war as evidence of assent.

I've read somewhere that Seymour Cray used to write his entire operating system in absolute octal. ("Absolute" means no relocation; all memory accesses and jumps must be hand-targeted to the correct address, as they would have to be with no assembler involved.)

Probably not. She needs to spend her time campaigning.

Not a bad idea, but it remains to be seen how many people are up for starting a run at this late date.

Also, I just read that Harris has money pouring in. The donors may effectively decide this before anyone else can get traction.

I've read that it was a driver of some kind, not an application. Applications can't cause BSODs (I hope).

Really interesting to me that none of the commentators I've seen in the press have even hinted that maybe an OS that requires frequent security patches shouldn't be used for infrastructure in the first place. For just one example, I've seen photos of BSODs on airport monitors that show flight lists -- why aren't those built on Linux or even OpenBSD?

Security is not a feature that can be layered on. It has to be built in. We now have an entire industry dedicated to trying to layer security onto Windows -- but it still doesn't work.

I prefer the term "deference" for treating someone as an authority. But you're right; people do often say "respect" when they mean "deference".

The elasticity doesn't matter for the equivalence of the two scenarios (head-on collision at 50 vs. brick wall at 50). We've assumed, albeit implicitly, that in the head-on case, the cars have equal and opposite momentum. Whether the collision is perfectly elastic, perfectly inelastic, or somewhere in between, a car will experience the same forces in the two scenarios (assuming, of course, that the elasticity is equal in the two cases).

Walter's answer is good, but here's another. When the two cars collide, it's possible to imagine that they are exact mirror images of each other and hit exactly head-on, so that a large sheet of paper hung vertically at exactly the collision point would not be torn. Of course we know that wouldn't literally happen in the real world, but it is possible. This thought experiment demonstrates that the collision is equivalent to hitting a brick wall at 50mph, not 100.

Alternatively, imagine one car is parked (in neutral, with its brake off) and the other car hits it at 100. The center of mass of the two cars is moving at 50 both before and after the collision (conservation of momentum); after it, the cars will be moving at that average speed. The impact will again be equivalent to the original scenario.

The original claim probably results from a conflation of these two scenarios.

ETA: So what student drivers should be told is that hitting another car head-on is like hitting a brick wall at the same speed. For this to be exactly true, the momenta (mass * velocity) of the two vehicles have to be equal and opposite, but to communicate the general idea, I don't think we have to go into that.

What do you suppose one should do if one received such a warning?

Penicillin never kills viruses; only bacteria. This is true of all antibiotics. Antivirals are a separate category (and don't tend to work as well AFAIK).

That was my point.

But if the sunlight that produced that power had hit something else instead, it also would have been turned into heat. There's no net heating of the planet from solar power. (Of course, the distribution of heating can change.)

Funny -- this is why I love working in Lisp. I can edit the code and retry it, often by just restarting the stack frame. Compiling takes milliseconds.

You seem to be overlooking that in that scenario, your land has appreciated considerably. If you sell, you'll net a gain; if you don't want to sell despite the gain, you can borrow against the property to pay the tax.

Here's the thing to understand: anyone buying property now in a popular area, where prices have been increasing rapidly for the last two or three decades, is effectively paying an LVT. The thing is, they're not paying it to the locality, which could use it for infrastructure and services; they're paying it to the previous owner, because the higher purchase price means a higher mortgage payment. That's redistribution too.

Cities that are getting bigger are presumably doing so because their economies are expanding. While I can guess why you don't like growth, you may be overlooking that your own economic opportunities are also improving.

Be that as it may, I think it's a problem with our system that homeowners are given such a strong incentive to keep housing scarce.

If you buy property in the second city, then as values rise, yes your taxes will go up but so will the value of your property. Worst case, you have to take out a home equity loan to pay the taxes, but you'll probably still come out ahead.

I've long advocated for an arrangement whereby if the value of a property increases by more than some small amount, say 2%, the excess wouldn't come due until the property was sold; the locality would hold a lien on the balance. This, IMO, is how Prop. 13 should have worked -- seniors on fixed incomes facing rising property values aren't really poor; they just have a cash flow problem, which could and should have been solved without taking money from the localities. Anyway, such a provision would make it unnecessary, in many cases, to take out a home equity loan to pay an LVT.

Of course, renters wouldn't benefit directly from property value gains, but as an LVT would incentivize construction, it would help bring rents down.

Yes, clearly an homage to APL.

The Note series never went away -- I put four years on a Note 4 and am typing this on a Note 9, still in great condition. So I don't think it's really "circles" as much as Samsung deciding to have only one flagship model.