zero-sharp

That's one interpretation: the system doesn't take of your specific needs and therefore it's neglectful or inadequate. Another interpretation is that the teacher is doing exactly what the school needs them to do because most 5 year olds aren't concerned with how air conditioners work. And perhaps it shouldn't be the responsibility of the kindergarten teacher to provide technical education?

There's a conversation to be had about the educational system underserving the intellectually curious. Trying to make that point in the context of kindergarten is a little absurd to me.

Are you asking me to believe that the educational system underserves kindergartners because the average kindergarten teacher can't provide an education on your narrow technical interest?

The responsibilities of the average kindergarten teacher probably include 1) making sure your kids don't swallow glue, and 2) making sure little johnny doesn't throw another tantrum.

Few of my teachers really understood the things I wanted to learn, my peers weren't interested in the nerdy things I was, and my parents certainly didn't have the wealth to provide me with private tutoring.

I can understand saying that when you're in middle or high school. But as a 5 year old? This comment has to be a joke?

I have a gripe with this attitude because it goes beyond browser use. Inserting the new fancy thing everywhere is often unnecessary and affects accessibility in a negative way for a nonneglible number of your users. And that was the point of the article, right?

Taking the conversation slightly outside the original context: if I go to a restaurant, should I have a phone and an app ready so that I can order food? If I go to the gym, should I have a gym app ready so that I can sign in? I don't like having to do that. But that's just another instance of this same attitude.

I like how you equate 10 year old browser users with luddites?

Look, I don't spend most of my time online criticizing AI progress. But what does your response even mean? People hallucinating work and solutions isn't commonplace at all, right? What industry do you work in where people hallucinate with frequency?

I don't think your comment represents the situation very well. They allowed the user to upload the data and they're storing the data regardless, right?

I like this answer. For me it's not about showing others that you're correct. Instead, it's about feeling like you're being heard/acknowledged.

I'm not trying to be the "lone free thinker". But if I see a hivemind, I occasionally insert my opinion with the intention of having a different perspective be recognized.

A totally understandable situation. Most people just want to use technology to accomplish their immediate goal. I'm tech savvy and I lose my mind every time I get distracted by broken/misconfigured technology.

So I just searched my email on HIBP again. Most of the leaks I see there were from old websites I hardly cared about securing from many years ago. But, in general, how do I find out what has actually been leaked (if it's not website specific)?

I'm not going to change all of my passwords every time a random website that I used briefly ten years ago leaks my low effort password.

If I understand this correctly, it translates Rocq to C++? Took me several minutes to even understand what this is. Why is it called an extraction system? Who is this for?

I'm confused.

edit: I had to dig into the author's publication list:

https://joomy.korkutblech.com/papers/crane-rocqpl26.pdf

Testing remains a fundamental practice for building confidence in software, but it can only establish correctness over a finite set of inputs. It cannot rule out bugs across all possible executions. To obtain stronger guarantees, we turn to formal verification, and in particular to certified programming techniques that allow us to de- velop programs alongside mathematical proofs of their correctness. However, there is a significant gap between the languages used to write certified programs and those relied upon in production systems. Bridging this gap is crucial for bringing the benefits of formal verification into real-world software systems.

I'm sorry, but was there a specific point you wanted to make in relation to the first two sentences of the grandparent's post?

Thanks for your reply. Unfortunately I'm not a student there. I just saw that they were making some of their lessons publicly available and wanted to organize the material for myself. I'm experiencing their courseware through the 2 minute long micro lessons on the Ed platform and I don't see any way to download the videos.

Seems like I'm stuck using Ed.

I don't know if HN gives you notifications when you get replies so I'm going to reply to this post regarding

https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=46179347&goto=item%3Fi...

How are you able to download the videos to begin with?

You have to leave your room first.

Hi is there a way to view the lectures in a more traditional way? For example, as one long video? I'm seeing lessons broken up into 2-5 minute long videos.

In reference to the open courseware, is there a way to either just download all of the videos in bulk, or view them as part of a single video? It looks like they're broken down into ~2 minute long video clips through the Ed platform, which is very annoying.

Say I want natural numbers, I need to choose a concrete implementation in set theory

In what situation do you ever actually need a set theoretic foundation of the natural numbers to get work done?

I've had the experience of working at a small business with extremely bad onboarding/organization:

1. documentation is nonexistent

2. broken processes that nobody can explain.

3. no clear direction to establish workflows. This is rationalized with "every situation is different"

4. a constantly changing system (which would partially explain 2)

5. an acknowledgement from the higher ups that training "takes years"

At a certain point, it's just about job security for the people who already work there since it creates such a high barrier to entry.

My guess is that most mathematicians wouldn't consider that notation abusive. Why do you think it is? That notation is a convenience that allows us to represent a sum over a set where the elements aren't indexed by integers. So, in this particular case, I think there is a utility to the notation. And also: the definition of \sum_{e\in S} is ubiquitous.

"it is natural that curly braces can denote both a set and a sequence, depending on this implicit input."

?

I don't even know where to begin. Overloading symbols in mathematics occurs all over the place. There's nothing wrong with that. The difference between overloading a symbol and abusing it is whether there is an agreed upon definition/convention regarding its use and to what extent its use conforms to that definition/convention. What I'm saying in my original post is that the statement "{x_n} is a sequence" disagrees with the formal idea of what a sequence is and that most writers don't bother to explain their own notational use.

If you wish to re-define the curly braces to have a context-dependent meaning, knock yourself out. But, I would imagine that that practice would confuse a lot of people. Math is a human activity. It's not a programming language.

You encounter abusive language/notation basically everywhere in math. Open up a calculus/real analysis textbook. A lot of the old ones write sequences in the curly brace/set {x_n} notation:

"let {x_n} be a sequence"

As the author points out, a sequence is a function. The statement {x_n} is the set of terms of the sequence, its range. A function and its range are two different things. And also sets have no ordering. It might seem like a minor thing, but I thought we were trying to be precise?

A second example: at the high school level, I'm pretty sure a lot of textbooks don't carefully distinguish between a function and the formula defining the function very well.

The author of this web page has a section on what he calls "double duty definitions". Personally, I don't find anything wrong with the language "let G=(V,E) be a graph". G is the graph and we're simultaneously defining/naming its structure. So, some of this is a matter of taste. And, to some extent, you just have to get used to the way mathematicians write.

interesting topic, but essential for who?

"or something"

"eating meat carries health risks"

"eating meat necessarily results in unethical treatment of livestock"

Sounds like a load of barnacles. Even that third one about impacting the environment is likely bogus.

If you scroll down in the xcancel link (posted in the same thread), you'll find side-by-side picture comparisons of the code, comments, libraries.

It's true. There's a lot missing from the presentation. There's a lot of ways to dismiss this particular post. Would it be unfair to ask you to argue against a steelmanned version instead?

So you ignored the context surrounding this piece of advice?

Yea, reinventing the wheel is a great way to learn. You're not going to hear an educator tell you to not reinvent the wheel.

I'm shocked that we allowed this to happen? It took decades for the research to catch up and, in that time, we've already saturated the environment?

I can't tell if you actually read the comment that you're responding to because you seem to be ringing the same bell. The issue at hand is creating opportunities for people who are clearly not cut out for white collar work. Framing this as "enabling excellence vs accommodating average" is out of touch and sounds extremely arrogant.