lex-lightning

7 ms·

1.
by lex-lightning 3y ago
Dope. Thanks. Have you written much Prolog? I was thinking about in Prolog terms and I think it’s the hardest paradigm to avoid the scoping problem in
2.
by lex-lightning 3y ago
Are you better at inventing than the worker is? Are your subsequent inventions better than the art they create? Do we really need double the widgets? I mean, the top post on this site yesterday was a self-balancing cube someone invented. T
3.
by lex-lightning 3y ago
I’ve asked Bing about sexual health questions and been told it’s not okay to talk about that. I asked it a question about Christianity and it stated things with the tone and certainty of a preacher. Just gross. And worse to put something l
4.
by lex-lightning 3y ago
Count me unimpressed too Bing Copilot can’t even answer simple questions about businesses in a particular city without lying. When confronted, it will apologize and then repeat the same text verbatim. Zero reasoning happening.
5.
by lex-lightning 3y ago
If I wanted to deeply pedantic, I think the blocks associated with those monady bits keep the parameters in scope longer than needed. But I never got into Haskell so I don’t really know.
6.
by lex-lightning 3y ago
I’m a contrived idea man, not a contrived solution man, damnit.
7.
by lex-lightning 3y ago
What if someone works 30 hours a week performing a service which is not yet automated, but uniquely theirs, like their own standup comedy. Contrast that with the replicable software example.
8.
by lex-lightning 3y ago
I still don’t fold clothes. I just buy stuff that doesn’t wrinkle. Work smarter not harder.
9.
by lex-lightning 3y ago
In the first case no, in the second yes. Great that you reduced the need to work. You are a hero to society. Not great to use that as a reason to control others.
10.
by lex-lightning 3y ago
Devil’s advocate: they’re both clerks and the liquor store is more dangerous, so yes they should be paid more
11.
by lex-lightning 3y ago
Hey I’m down to party with some monads, but I leave that as an exercise to the reader. One note: each variable only gets assigned to once, so FP won’t magic that away. The side effects might have a different way of management in FP. But t
12.
by lex-lightning 3y ago
The logarithmic decay could be more about more and more people hitting their satisfaction level, than about what the wealth can purchase. In other words, very few people actually want to be billionaires. Or more simply: most people want t
13.
by lex-lightning 3y ago
I think genuinely most people don’t want to exert power over others, so the value doesn’t increase for most
14.
by lex-lightning 3y ago
I appreciate your interest. I’d argue that even declaring ‘c’ is against the spirit though. To say nothing of the eldritch shadow cast there (no disrespect, I think we’re both enjoying playing around here)
15.
by lex-lightning 3y ago
What about different working conditions? Is one hour in a coal mine the same as one hour as an actor? What if a person has a debilitating illness that prevents them from working but is also expensive to take care of?
16.
by lex-lightning 3y ago
You are morally and intellectually superior.
17.
by lex-lightning 3y ago
I would have paid double my taxes over my career if the US would spend it on elevating the poor. But asking me to not retire, to give away my savings to very few people? What, that’s not ethical. What if I made a lot, but spend very littl
18.
by lex-lightning 3y ago
My personal pet peeve is how every retirement calculator bakes in an assumption like “you’ll NEED 75% of your current income as living expenses when you retire.” Like your salary won’t change over your career. Like you’re just an impulse b
19.
by lex-lightning 3y ago
I had a great manager who was a coding genius, always available to pair even if it took hours to explain something, and has been a friend for years after we both left that company. But before that company I had a manager at a very small com
20.
by lex-lightning 3y ago
a = getInt(); b = getInt() + a; c = getInt(); d = b / c; puts(d); puts(c); puts(b); puts(a); Nothing in the middle of this code prevents using ‘a’ even though it isn’t relevant to ‘c’. And there’s no way to arrange it to change that.
21.
by lex-lightning 3y ago
For real though. This was my biggest frustration when I was an SE. Want people in a large organization to ignore your ideas? Speak them out loud. Want them to follow them as dogma? Write a blog post under a pseudonym.
22.
by lex-lightning 3y ago
When I was a kid I would tell my parents I cleaned my room, then they’d look in the closet and see everything in a pile.
23.
by lex-lightning 3y ago
you are specifically the person who should get a case. Or wipe your hands or something? This is an absurdly high rate of breaking phones. no one here has any incantations or runes that will safeguard you from physics
24.
by lex-lightning 3y ago
This isn’t always possible, even in lisp. Compare to Rust’s non-lexical lifetimes
25.
by lex-lightning 3y ago
This sounds like another option while maintaining agreement with the gist of what I meant. Those are good, though that’s where I start preferring smallness
26.
by lex-lightning 3y ago
I agree. I love my iPhone and my iPad. But that touch bar era on the Mac was rough.
27.
by lex-lightning 3y ago
Smooth, squiggly, hard, and pointy are my gotos
28.
by lex-lightning 3y ago
But what if the two houses are otherwise identical? Even a small convenience will tip decisionmaking
29.
by lex-lightning 3y ago
Yes, but programming is more akin to copywriting than mathematical notation most of the time. Math has very well-defined, well-trod conventions that are densely packed into the notation. When people try to write code like this though, it
30.
by lex-lightning 3y ago
The drawback of the microscopic function craze is you lose the ability to read a whole procedure from top to bottom. If some code is truly reused, break it out into a function with a good name, sure. But in my domain I have seen countless

More ›