Yeah, it doesn’t really belong in the ‘no’ column. It’s not an appropriate cat food because it’s not nutritionally complete.
So it’s rather like how just eating bread or cornmeal that don’t have added vitamins will give you scurvy or pellagra. But obviously they’re not poisonous or anything and most of the world eats them without a problem.
I mean, this is mostly about treats, so…
Cats being obligate carnivores means most of their calories must come from meat because they e.g. can’t synthesize taurine like a human or dog can. But eating a bit of cat grass isn’t gonna kill them.
Yeah. Power plants are nowhere near 90% efficient.
It’s worth emphasizing, though, that they’re still way, way more efficient than car engines are.
Also, regenerative breaking saves a lot of energy. Basically, instead of using the motor to increase the cars speed, you use it as a generator to recharge the battery.
And memory bugs are only a subset of bugs that can be exploited in a program. Pretending Rust means no more exploitation is stupid.
This is facile.
According to Microsoft, about 70% of security bugs they see are memory safety issues.
Yes: if you introduce memory safety, there’s still those 30% of security bugs left. But, well, I’d rather worry about 30% of issues than 100%…
Similarly, I use libraries that eliminate SQL injections unless you really go out of your way.
Emacs is a bunch older than common lisp.
One of its more idiosyncratic design decisions was using dynamic scope, rather than lexical scope. They did add in per-file lexical scope, though.
It also just doesn’t implement a lot of common lisp’s standard library.
Although it’s been used for a fairly wide array of algorithms for decades. Everything from alpha-beta tree search to k-nearest-neighbors to decision forests to neural nets are considered AI.
Edit: The paper is called
Avoiding fusion plasma tearing instability with deep reinforcement learning
Reinforcement learning and deep neural nets are buzzwordy these days, but neural nets have been an AI thing for decades and decades.
Emacs unfortunately uses Emacs lisp, not common lisp or scheme.
Vav is a product of ashkenaszi pronunciations due to yiddish. Originally it’s Waw.
Vav has nothing to do with Yiddish.
The pronunciation shift occurred in a large number of groups that didn’t speak Yiddish, and shifts like that also aren’t uncommon cross-linguistically.
The exact same shift happened in Italian, as well: v in classical Latin made a w sound, but morphed to a v in most romance languages.
Pronunciation shifts don’t have to come out of influence of other languages, they just kinda happen normally on their own. Sometimes this causes spelling changes (such as the many Spanish words with an h that came from a Latin f, like hablo or hijo), other times it changes the sound of the letter, such as how the Greek phi went from an aspirated p to an f sound, or a j went from a y sound to an English j.
And the multiple names for God thing comes from Kaballah
Kabbalah talks about the multiple names of god, but the Torah itself uses a number of different names for god.
For that matter, look at Hebrew names. You have names like Matityahu (gift of god), Daniel (god is my judge), and eliyahu (god is my god), using different names of god. Why do biblical Hebrew names use both el and yahu to refer to god, if multiple names was a kabbalistic innovation?
Symbols display with friendly string-y names in a number of languages. Clojure, for example, has a symbol type.
And a number of languages display friendly strings for enumy things - Scala, Haskell, and Rust spring to mind.
The problem with strings over enums with a nice debugging display is that the string type is too wide. Strings don’t tell you what values are valid, strings don’t catch typos at compile time, and they’re murder when refactoring.
Clojure symbols are good at differentiation between symbolly things and strings, though they don’t catch typos.
The other problem the article mentions is strings over a proper struct/adt/class hierarchy is that strings don’t really have any structure to them. Concatenating strings is brittle compared to building up an AST then rendering it at the end.
Edit: autocorrect messed a few things up I didn’t catch.
Suppose one year you spend $60k, but only earned $50k. You lost $10k.
The next year, you spend $57k, and earned $53k. You lost $4k, and your losses narrowed by $6k.
Disney+ lost 1.3 million subscribers in the final quarter of 2023 amid a hefty price hike that went into effect last fall, but managed to narrow its streaming business’ losses by $300 million during the October-December period.
That doesn’t really sound like it backfired to me. They lost subscribers but made more money.
Javascript is generally considered OOP, but classes weren’t widely available till 2017.
Inheritance isn’t fundamental to OOP, and neither are interfaces. You can have a duck- typed OOP language without inheritance, although I don’t know of any off the top of my head.
Honestly, the more fundamental thing about OOP is that it’s a programming style built around objects. Sometimes OO languages are class based, or duck typing based, etc. But you’ll always have your data carrying around it’s behavior at runtime.
keeping state (data) and behavior (functions) that operate on that state, together
Importantly, that’s “together at runtime”, not in terms of code organization. One of the important things about an object is that it has dynamic dispatch. Your object is a pointer both to the data itself and to the implementation that works on that data.
There’s a similar idea that’s a bit different that you see in Haskell, Scala, and Rust - what Haskell calls type classes. Rust gives it a veneer of OO syntax, but the semantics themselves are interestingly different.
In particular, the key of type classes is keeping data and behavior separate. The language itself is responsible for automagically passing in the behavior.
So in Scala, you could do something like
def sum[A](values: List[A])(implicit numDict: Num[A]) = values.fold(numDict.+)(numDict.zero)
Or
def sum[A: Num](values: List[A]) = values.fold(_ + _)(zero)
Given a Num typeclass that encapsulates numeric operations. There’s a few important differences:
All of the items of that list have to be the same type of number - they’re all Ints or all Doubles or something
It’s a list of primitive numbers and the implementation is kept separate - no need for boxing and unboxing.
Even if that list is empty, you still have access to the implementation, so you can return a type-appropriate zero value
Generic types can conditionally implement a typeclass. For example, you can make an Eq instance for List[A] if A has an Eq instance. So you can compare List[Int] for equality, but not List[Int => Int].
One poll this year found that almost one in three Americans say they may never retire. The majority of the nevers said they could not afford to give up a full-time job, especially when inflation was eating into an already measly Social Security cheque. But suppose you are one of the lucky ones who can choose to step aside. Should you do it? …
But can anything truly replace the framework and buzz of being part of the action? You can have a packed diary devoid of deadlines, meetings and spreadsheets and flourish as a consumer of theatre matinees, art exhibitions and badminton lessons. Hobbies are all well and good for many. But for the extremely driven, they can feel pointless and even slightly embarrassing.
That is because there is depth in being useful. And excitement, even in significantly lower doses than are typical earlier in a career, can act as an anti-ageing serum. Whenever Mr Armani is told to retire and enjoy the fruits of his labour, he replies “absolutely not”. Instead he is clearly energised by being involved in the running of the business day to day, signing off on every design, document and figure.
Who exactly is this article being written for?
Clearly, it’s not written towards anyone working the average job. It presupposes that your job must be the most fulfilling and useful thing you could do.
It even calls out tech professionals as retiring early. But how many programmers can’t think of a more useful or fulfilling open source project to work on than what they do at their day job?
The idea of a Pokémon clone isn’t protectable, but existing Pokémon are.
You can make a Pokémon clone with entirely novel monsters, but if a judge thinks they look too much like an existing Pokémon they’re gonna have a problem.
Yeah, projects also exist in the real world and practical considerations matter.
The legacy C/C++ code base might slowly and strategically have components refactored into rust, or you might leave it.
The C/C++ team might be interested in trying Rust, but have to code urgent projects in C/C++.
In the same way that if you have a perfectly good felling axe and someone just invented the chain saw, you’re better off felling that tree with your axe than going into town, buying a chainsaw and figuring out how to use it. The axe isn’t really the right tool for the job anymore, but it still works.
C is not how a computer truly works.
If you want to know how computers work, learn assembly and circuit design. You can learn C without ever thinking about registers, register allocation, the program counter, etc.
Although you can learn assembly without ever learning about e.g. branch prediction. There’s tons of levels of abstraction in computers, and many of the lower level ones try to pretend you’ve still got a computer from the 80s even though CPUs are a lot more complex than they used to be.
As an aside, I’ve anecdotally heard of some schools teaching Rust instead of C as a systems language in courses. Rust has a different model than C, but will still teach you about static memory vs the stack vs the heap, pointers, etc.
Honestly, if I had to write some systems software, I’d be way more confident in any Rust code I wrote than C/C++ code. Nasal demons scare me.
Oh, yeah.
If your point is that ICE car batteries have problems in the cold, so cold batteries is a problem for everyone and worse for ICE cars, that’s fair.
If your point is that ICE car batteries suck therefore EVs suck, that’s not really valid logic.
Lead-acid batteries aren’t lithium ion? And the car starter battery isn’t equivalent to that of an EV?
You might as well say that I have trouble starting my gas weed wacker, therefore cars are hard to start.
The fathers of 44% of Israel were born in Israel, as of 2015. I doubt they have dual citizenship, just as most Americans don’t have dual citizenship to their grandparents and great grandparents countries of origin.
Also, most Mizrahim and Sephardim these days are living in Israel, similarly to how most Ashkenazim are in the US. Even if an Israeli somehow has e.g. Iraqi, Iranian or Yemeni citizenship, moving back probably isn’t a safe idea. Morocco is probably safer, though.
After the fall of the USSR, there was also a huge wave of Russian emigration to Israel. Given conscription for the war in Ukraine, moving back now might not be the best idea.