genneth

I couldn't help but pursue the pun: https://github.com/genneth/monet

This is "law" from an European (EU) perspective. The foundations differ in English and US law. I've always thought it would be interesting to compare them in the same way computer scientists compare the design choices in different operating systems. At the top level the same outcomes are desirable, but the lower levels and choices of abstractions are different.

Because the interval, on average, grows exponentially with the number of basic operations. So it quickly becomes practically useless.

This is doubly unpersuasive in any common law jurisdiction. The whole point of such a system is that the idea that the correct outcomes are easier to arrive at in the specific than the general, and that the codification happens after precedents.

Even in civil law systems the fact is that case law is a coexistent partner to the interpretation of texts.

The fact this guy is learning law should actually be a cause of not taking this very seriously. I would be more interested by a practitioner making the case. (I am not!) In fact, this applies strongly to the case he gives: I would bet no judge in Canada (outside of Quebec, maybe?) would take his argument seriously. The way he has approached this question honest smacks of ivory tower academia.

If you made be steelman the argument, it should be that the usual methods predate the era of formal methods, and that the overall system could be made better. Then one would have to explain better in an operationally important way for practitioners and workers in the system, usually by some convincing argument about time saved. Remember that arguments over definitions is a very small part of the time taken in the job!

Compiler error if these are ever instantiated/need to be monomorphised? The problem is that this is very unrustic by having the error be very non local.

But maybe this is unavoidable once you have sufficiently complex const fn anyway...

In reality the application running on top of the database wants C-kinda-A. https://research.google/pubs/pub45855/

Despite being a global distributed system, Spanner claims to be consistent and highly available, which implies there are no partitions and thus many are skeptical. Does this mean that Spanner is a CA system as defined by CAP? The short answer is “no” technically, but “yes” in effect and its users can and do assume CA.

The point is that if my application will actually go down anyway if the WAN craps out, then really, I don't actually need P. The application would also be significantly simpler if it assumes that if the application can work, then the DB is also up. And one seems that realistic systems built on Spanner simply assume CA and then get on with life...

Since version 4, plotly isn't horrible. It's okay. It does basic things fine enough that I use it almost exclusively. However, I most plot for personal analysis, not for presenting to others.