rosebay

The article directly quotes google giving a clear answer….

“Google replied to the tweet directly, saying, “Bard is an early experiment based on Large Language Models and will make mistakes. It is not trained on Gmail data. -JQ”.

Great explanation

Katex is truly great. Fun trivia facts - one of its developers also played a core role in React (she is a legend)

Thanks for sharing

I didn’t know IBM mainframes run the world? Just curious, care to expand?

I read the blog, was mortified but luckily others have already provided feedback in an earlier thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28325563

To the author’s credit, I loved that he is thinking analytically and he did take the feedback positively - there are some good ideas in the post.

Wow! Cannot thank you enough for such an awesome site!

Why isn’t a Trie considered the fastest solution?

All I want is nominal types, if this is possible already, somebody please let me know!!

I tend to agree but would be happy to be proven wrong by more knowledgeable folks in these comments.

However I assume here we are talking about dotted lists and not ‘proper’ ones?

Thanks!

Unrelated but you most posted a comment many years back (below). Wondering if you have any tips on research / articles in this space?

Yes, very nice. But it needs an update on structured documents (tree-like, as in HTML). And, ideally, it should be accompanied by work that addresses collaborative editing in such structured documents.

That looks really good. P.s CodeMirror is awesome, by far the best editor plug-in on the web

This is clearly self promotion…and the multiple alt accounts / friend accounts to try to create a particular impression of the software…

I would agree

Agreed. I program in CL and other languages too. I find Java developers tend to have a stronger understanding of OOP and that might be behind your insight. For all its benefits, it feels like at times many CL users miss the point of OOP.

CLOS itself is great, however the decoupling of data and methods is something at times I find leads to harder to understand code.

Closures don’t have inheritance or any of the other machinery that object oriented programming typically comes with.

Perhaps saying they are light weight objects (where objects has its meaning as instances of classes) is a good way of saying it.

The realisation that closures and objects are very similar is one of the main turning points in becoming proficient in both OOP and Functional Programming, it was for me at least.