danghica

So there were three deaths for who knows how many rides. How does this compare with bikes and cars? Surely some people die using those or any other means of transport, including walking.

Yes, and this means that you do have far bigger problems than keeping track of drug trials.

Why not a government regulated database?

Hello all, I am the author of the blog post. Now the tool is available online: https://fyp.jackhughesweb.com/tasks/

Please fill out the feedback form if you have time, so we can improve the project.

There is absolutely no irony. Extreme inequality is undesirable on any scale. This is consistency, the opposite of irony.

You seem to assume that extreme inequality in society is to be fought against only if it leads to an overall degradation of material prosperity. That is nonsense. People always wanted more equality for the same reason they wanted democracy, no matter what the level of material prosperity in a country. People have a deep-seated need to be engaged and to have a say in the unfolding of their own destiny at the scale of society, to have meaningful lives. Indeed, the average person in the US, EU, Japan, Australia, etc. has food, clothes, transportation, health-care (perhaps not US), technology and so on that would make the kings of 100 years ago envious. But they also know that their influence on society through conventional democratic means has decreased dramatically in the last 50 years, as the super-wealthy amassed the material and political means to control the decision-making process. And guess what? Many people hate that. Many people will not be bribed into political submission by knick-knacks, amusement and delicious snacks. There is deep resentment brewing.

Indeed. Agda and Coq are excellent examples.

Yes, of course. But that is not the point at stake here.

If "everything computes" then you can not use "because it computes" as an explanation.

Yes, but they merely spell out Chalmers's implementation relation without even acknowledging it properly:

"The question of when a physical system is computing is fundamentally a question about the relationship of abstract mathematical/logical entities to physical ones [22]."

I suppose you refer to section 6 in his paper which attacks a particular critique of computationalism. I think the particular point he is making is valid. However, the argument this blog post is making is a different one.

Pied Piper?

You would still need to program in Agda though :) Cheers!

Indeed, I was going to talk about session types in a follow-on post :) Well anticipated! Cheers!

I agree with monads, not so sure about algebraic effects. Having to define the effect feels like "simulation" to me. It's OK for a meta-language, but to me it feels wrong for actual effectful programming.

I am aware of this -- I teach Agda :) But I think Agda is not quite as accessible as Python, that's what I meant. Cheers!

In fact, by considering diagrams left as exercise you will learn even more! :)

Site promptly collapsed. I'll need to have a word with admins. Meanwhile, here's a link to a text-only cached version: http://bit.ly/1dbgW1J

Yes!

Yes, of course. Exercise!

Good questions! But remember this is a theory that I am developing along as we go with a bunch of kids. We may end up with a lot of open problems.

For (1) I think the answer is 'yes' because the knots are finite structures. For (2) I don't know.

Fixed, thanks!