HN user
Apple is the biggest company in the world by a pretty significant margin[0]. The clout they wield is absolutely insane and they could kill many things if they were so inclined.
[0] -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_public_corporations_by...
'Verified' ticks in general are so bizarrely mismanaged. See also Twitter removing the status of controversial political figures. I feel like they should be totally open access to anyone who can provide irrefutable proof of identity, rather than these odd status symbols.
Maybe it's different in other countries (I am in the UK), but I feel as if there isn't enough content for a recommender system to even be useful. I feel like after browsing through the catalogue a few times, I have a rough idea of most things I would ever possibly be interested in. There's just not that much there. Either that, or the recommender system is working too well and I never see anything beyond what Netflix wants me to.
I would nominally agree with this logic, but surely the exact same applies when voting? Should people not bother voting because they are just one in a sea of many?
Buying the cheapest Casio can also be a status signal, similar to the CEO of Goldman Sachs wearing a Swatch. Buying a truly cheap watch is a signal of 'I don't care' (which may be true, or may be affected), whereas getting into expensive watches can get very complicated. There's plenty of stories from investment banking about the signals that watches send, from my understanding people are more likely to poke fun at a Tag Heuer than a Casio.
To ask a very amateur question, why do people think Bitcoin specifically will succeed? Aren't there dozens of coins out there which have fixed some of it's most glaring flaws?
This shouldn't be so controversial, given that they work for us,
Pretty suspect line of reasoning when you apply it to literally any other scenario.
They didn't set out to explicitly prove 1+1=2, they just got around to it after 2 volumes, it didn't require 2 volumes of background. A direct proof of 1+1=2 is pretty short in most logical systems.
Great talk. The definition of observational equivalence is very elegant. I instantly thought it made no sense or must be a partial definition, then the simple example given on the next slide explained it perfectly.
For many roles at a hedge fund, being able to do mathematics quickly and intuitively is a valuable skill. Not sure why an economist applying for an MD job would need to be tested on that, though.
It seems to me like Lean has a lot of the momentum at the moment. It's clear that other projects like Coq suffer from a lack of traditional mathematicians formalising modern, fashionable topics. Kevin Buzzard's implementation in Lean of perfectoid spaces is a great example of that boundary being broken, as far as I can tell the most advanced Coq proofs are the four colour theorem and Feit-Thompson theorem, which have analogue proofs from the 60s and 70s.
The author of the Metamath Zero paper is actually one of the most active contributors to the project described in the article[0].
[0] https://leanprover-community.github.io/mathlib_stats.html
Increased assurance that the proof is correct and the various standard benefits of digital over analogue data. This software automatically checks the validity of the proof (with a very small, manually verified core of code doing so), it does not automatically generate proofs wholesale. The proof itself is written by the mathematician interactively, which is still a manual process that requires skill, creativity and thought.
Totality is optional in Idris. Also, the big dependently-typed languages like Coq, Agda, Idris all support corecursion, so they can run programs infinitely provided the program does something productive.
I'm not sure what Turing completeness has to do with such a problem. There's a theoretical non-Turing complete subset of HTML+JS that has all the problems you claim, meanwhile Markdown with a built-in lambda calculus interpreter is Turing complete yet much less problematic. I think you're overcomplicating things for yourself by bringing terms like 'Turing-complete content' into the discussion, surely it just suffices to explain that the more powerful the system, the more open to abuse it is?
I'd say there is quite an important conceptual difference in that the state monad example exactly desugars to pure functional code. Monads give us a good syntax for sequential computation, but this sequentiality is built out of purely functional components.
I've seen TAoCP (The Art of Computer Programming) and TaPL (Types and Programming Languages) used before, and both are definitely great.
I was just responding to the parent comment's claim that Haskell's sum types are not true sum types.
I find it strange that the Facebook employee wouldn't just forcibly change OP's username to something else (e.g. @danny123) then give the desired name to their friend. Actually stealing someone's account seems like an over the top and unlikely way to go about this.
Haskell's Either is a 'true' sum type, it corresponds exactly to the way sums have been defined in the literature for decades, and also is the Curry-Howard representation of logical or. It necessarily must be inside a Either-like wrapper in order to be type safe, String and Int are ultimately different and so at some point we must discriminate between them. foo could call further functions with its argument inside itself accepting Either String Int, but eventually a destructor will be hit somewhere in the call stack.
If String and Int do implement the same behaviour under some circumstance, then a typeclass should be used to define that behaviour. Then foo can have type (Bar baz) => baz -> Int, where String and Int have Bar instances.
The problem is also that in order to generically define functors, one needs higher-kinded types. The Haskell/Scala code on the Wikipedia page is not translatable to say, Java.
Doesn't that put off a lot of very high-quality candidates though? If someone joins because they want to work in an interesting machine learning team, they probably don't want to be potentially moved on to a legacy Java CRUD app. Or is transferring determined more by what the employee wants?
That model Macbook is 4-8 years old. This is a pretty useless and condescending comment.
He's still relatively young, and likely realises the near absolute power he holds over one of the largest companies in the world is not something he can get back once he gives it up. Also Gates, to put it in very uncharitable terms, has shown that it doesn't matter if you're seen as a hated, greedy CEO as long as you do enough philanthropy later in life.
Intended according to whom?
I noticed that in the screenshots section[1], the Linux screenshots for the Netsurf site and Wikipedia are from this year, but the BBC one is from 2011. How does the current BBC site fare?
It's still there as far as I can see, it's in an image[0]. I believe their intention is to show a kind of pseudo-desugaring of what the IO monad actually does internally.
[0] -- https://pitayan.com/assets/static/haskell.cbab2cf.82d9f5b091...
There's a woman living in Japan who was born before George Orwell. It's incredible to think that one could be in their 60s and still have half a century left.
I still very much doubt they actually destroy the data though. They could easily be keeping everything and then once the ransomware stops paying as well, they'll start profiting from what they've stolen.
That's still coming via the API. They may be blocking any large chunks of text from being reproduced, rather than individual characters (which would be harder to police).