phizy

7 ms·

1.
by phizy 6y ago
You can do better, then. Read nendroids latest reply to me, and help them understand that it's the "use of statements" that makes a language imperative, not the "modification of state." I won't be responding, a
2.
by phizy 6y ago
That is absurd. You could work yourself to death scrubbing dishes and it will never match the returns of inheriting a fortune from your parents. You do not live in a world where wealth is meritocratically distributed.
3.
by phizy 6y ago
>What variable or data was mutated within haskell? The stdout buffer. Just because mutation isn't explicit doesn't mean it isn't there. Programming languages are not syntax devoid of meaning: they have semantics. What happ
4.
by phizy 6y ago
What's the difference? Let me quote them directly: "Oh, you're one of THOSE people." ( What people? ) "Trump is not being impeached." (Simple to verify, not up for debate.) "Biden is not Trump's oppon
5.
by phizy 6y ago
You said FP "breaks down" when handling mutability, and you attributed that to some vague sense in which "mathematics" is the cause of it. I have no bias for FP. I just don't understand what you're getting at.
6.
by phizy 6y ago
Mathematicians have no trouble modeling change. There are many ways to do so. Some are algebraic, some are not. There is nothing wrong with modelling mutability using immutable structures: that is how you probably think about history, after
7.
by phizy 6y ago
>Not all aspects of programming can be described by math. This is completely untrue. You may not be familiar with the math, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If you can model something well enough to understand it, then y
8.
by phizy 6y ago
The primary difference between computer science and mathematics proper is an overt concern for performance. Mathematical elegance and computational efficiency are not the same thing. Haskell is a pretty awesome language, but it doesn't
9.
by phizy 6y ago
Not that I'm disagreeing with you in any way, but it's worth recognizing that imperative languages typically do pattern matching and type constraining in a declarative manner. So one could make an argument that what you're sa
10.
by phizy 6y ago
I've disowned by family for their willingness to reject common and simple facts, their hostile attitude, their repeated willingness to denigrate all I stand for, and an utter lack of self-awareness. I'll let you guess who they vot
11.
by phizy 6y ago
>However, when someone responds in a way that says they are willing to at least consider an opposing view, I will have a conversation. But what if they don't want a conversation? What if they want a "silent majority" that
12.
by phizy 6y ago
Would you rather have an expert in Rust doing web programming in Rust, or a novice in JS doing web programming in JS? The best language to use is the one you know how to use best. If you know all languages equally well that you're free
13.
by phizy 6y ago
There's always been people who believe in nonsense. Most people, throughout most of history have. The meaning of "post-truth" today is that people in power are no longer being asked to justify what they do on the basis of fac
14.
by phizy 6y ago
That's a disingenuous narrative. Truth can ultimately be verified independent of belief. That's what makes it true. If your idea if truth is such that it can be dictated by political will, then you don't understand what makes
15.
by phizy 6y ago
How the hell is a 10% survival rate "not optimism?" Try a trillionth of a percent. It makes an astronomical time difference.
16.
by phizy 6y ago
>In 40 generations of space colonization, that's 40 times 30,000 times however long it takes to rebuild the capability on each colony. Assuming each generation survives. Stop making that assumption, and see how many ways there are f
17.
by phizy 6y ago
A decade out of date? It'll take you 30,000 years to reach the nearest star at the rate of the fastest moving object ever constructed by man. If anything any of us are talking about are able to be out-of-date in a mere decade, the
18.
by phizy 6y ago
It's not a powerful argument for 'we must be alone', because it's an equally powerful argument for 'space colonization is nearly impossible.' You're saying things are "certainly possible" but you
19.
by phizy 6y ago
It is a paradox. It assumes you have a definition of uninteresting number such that you can select the least uninteresting number, and then retroactively defines that number to be interesting by brand new criteria, which contradicts that yo
20.
by phizy 6y ago
I'm not going to explain to you how fame and media attention are exceptional. It should be obvious to anyone who doesn't have their head up their ass. I guess if you want to claim that the behaviors of heads of state and professio
21.
by phizy 6y ago
So you take no responsibility for spreading misinformation if the prior source is not corrected? Sounds like you're acting in bad faith then. You can win an internet argument anywhere, but if that's all you want to achieve here, t
22.
by phizy 6y ago
If your go-to examples of male touch are reserved for brief celebratory gestures and "inappropriate" touching, then it would seem you're not effectively making the point you're attempting to make. Neither of these exampl
23.
by phizy 6y ago
It seems pretty clear to me that the ideal (for those who don't want to be authoritarians) has always been to offer as many opportunities to evade violence as possible. If someone is violating the law, ask them to correct it. If they f
24.
by phizy 6y ago
There is no "point of view of a photon." Photons do not have frames of reference. So you are completely incorrect insofar as what you are saying is physically nonsense.