tejon

For what it's worth: it's _very_ rare for a type annotation to be required in Haskell. It's just considered best practice (supported by compiler warning options) to have them on all top-level declarations, for two reasons:

- it's a good extra layer of _human-readable_ documentation about basic behavior and requirements (as in this article); and

- it lets the compiler give better error messages.

The compiler is _always_ going to do its own inference, whether you give it a signature or not. If it infers a valid type _which isn't the one you thought you wrote_, and you didn't specify what the type _should_ be, that function/statement will compile -- you won't get an error until later, when you attempt to consume it and the types don't match. This can be harder to trace, especially if there's a bunch of polymorphic code in the middle where any type will pass. Supplying a manual annotation lets the compiler immediately say "hey, these don't match."

My name is for getting my attention. Once you have my attention, I enjoy hearing it exactly as much as I enjoy an ongoing fire alarm.

Ethiopia provides solid competition.

As someone who didn't own a TV, thus any consoles: the Switch was out before I learned the Wii U wasn't just an accessory for the Wii.

You should go back to 1910 and tell Einstein he can't start for another 50 years.

GP was mocking the belief of ~63M people (and GGP's parallel belief by proxy), not holding it up as evidence.

Frequencies are heavily regulated in the US as well. There are a handful of public bands, but anything else requires FCC licensing to use. Broadcast power is also restricted.

Of course, Germany could still be more restrictive, I don't know the law there! But there must be a fairly simple licensing path for some microwave bands, or nobody would be able to sell wireless routers. This is the same general class of equipment, so unless there's too much restriction on broadcast power to connect at kilometer+ ranges (with a focused directional antenna, rather than the broadcast antenna of a router!) there should be a way to make it work.

Onions! Hey, this thing will make your eyes water at 10 paces. Let's eat it.

Headcanon: the discovery that they are edible was the accidental result of a failed suicide attempt.

+1 to this analysis. The very first thing I thought of when I saw the title was [1]. Most of the examples in the article just confused me.

[1] http://mlreference.com/

Not a physicist but I thought the Planck length specifically denies infinitesimality? And one of the proposed solutions to the black hole information problem is that due to local relativistic effects, they never actually reach singularity in finite time.

I would have just dropped "tech".

I haven't used any of these, but my understanding is that Agda and Coq are not Turing-complete, nor is Idris with the totality checker on. Never seen anyone dispute these being referred to as "languages."

Programming is first and foremost, an exercise in frustration. It is exacting and unforgiving in a way that few human activities are. It's somewhat unnatural. In order to excel at it I believe you need to feel an intrinsic thrill when solving a problem that surpasses all the frustration leading up that point, and you need to seek this out over and over and over.

This is more than two tweets long. How is it supposed to become the viral quote it deserves to be?

So is Magic: the Gathering.

The latest core language spec is 2010, and GHC (the de-facto standard compiler) adds several new language extensions annually.

I think optimally, if you like the basement and your business is growing out of it, you sell it to someone else who likes big, and find yourself a fresh basement.

    greater_than = (>)

Which tutorial? So far I've only done Learn You and some exercism.io stuff.

assume a definition of intelligence where the mean of blacks vs the mean of whites is more or less equal,

How is this any more reasonable an assumption? Don't get me wrong: I don't want to believe the alternative. But I can't just discount the possibility based on personal bias in absence of evidence, which seems to be what you're advocating. IQ not being an ideal model in no way implies that every conclusion derived from it is false; that's the fallacy fallacy. Do you have anything else to support an assertion of uniform mental capacity across the human species?

Thrilled to see another libertarian argument for universal income! I’ve been arguing this for a few years myself, and even ran some rough numbers to demonstrate feasibility in this blog post: http://squangen.com/?p=118

Astonished to find no David Brin on that site, or in this discussion. The man has seven Hugo Awards for a reason! Otherness (short story collection) and Earth were downright formative for me.

You conflate "educated" with "superficially cynical."

I didn't know about that, neat! In fact I'm rather proud to say I couldn't have known about it at the time, because it was... hmm... I'm gonna say 1993, give or take a year.

My version had considerably lower resolution, though, since I used quarter-inch grid paper at 8.5x11", so it was 0.125 units per square. :)

Meanwhile, look what I just found while verifying my memory that the core set fits in y = +/- 2.0:

http://www.wikihow.com/Plot-the-Mandelbrot-Set-By-Hand

As others have noted here I think the web could use an improved version of "Yahoo Answers"; something with a StackOverflow feel.

It's odd that nothing fills this gap. Slant.co comes close, but is built around "what" rather than "why" or "how" -- useful in its own right, but not the same.

I wonder if the problem is simply that Yahoo! Questions, Ask.com and Quora are all just too well-known and nobody wants to take them on, despite how terrible they are? Considering the celebrated audacity of startup culture I'd honestly be surprised if this is the case, but on the other hand I'm not finding a lot of other compelling explanations.

I suppose one other possibility is that aforementioned sites have soured the public on the genre to the point that when someone says, "It's kind of like Yahoo Questions or Ask.com," the immediate response is "Ick."

I once calculated the Mandelbrot set on graph paper. This article makes me feel slightly less dorky. :)

More like three or four hundred. And before that, replace "secretary" with "scribe."

...I make $12/hr...

... :(

Doesn't matter; supports Haskell.

Of course it's a gray link... but wow, major enhancements since ~1 year ago when I was on my pathfinding binge. Good stuff! Never did implement full jump-point optimization, though I got halfway there by manipulating queue priorities.

FPGAs are the only context in which I've ever encountered Verilog, so I'm gonna say yes?

And as it relates to ever present discussions on HN about women in tech, the reason women are not in tech is because they are not interested in tech as much as men. For whatever reason they simply are not.

Jumping from this to "therefore evolution" is exactly as specious as jumping to "therefore culture." Actually moreso, because it's cultural by definition; the question is what sparked the culture.

The culture may, indeed, be rooted in biological predisposition toward the topics involved. It could also be rooted in biological predisposition toward shoving others out of a social club, and/or allowing oneself to be shoved out -- metaphorically or through literal physical force.

Or it could be rooted in a long history of self-serving decisions which have nothing to do with biology whatsoever, only people in power working to concentrate and maintain that power. Disqualifying half the race is quite a coup.

Yes, we have significant gender dimorphism in our hormones and neurotransmitters. It's very likely that at some level, that's relevant. But claiming it as the root cause is arbitrary non-sequitur. Causation has to be demonstrated, it can't simply be inferred.