dolia

"make no mistakes", my guy. Some people took these habits to communication with other people nowadays.

Sure, it is philosophical. You could even go further and say that math exists in the same sense it exists in the Library of Babel, since it's also text.

I would say that this comparison oversimplifies things. Non-math stories in Library of Babel are less practically useful and are less possible to get checked than the math texts. Wrong math can exist, but we often have ways to figure out it's wrong.

For practical purposes I would assume (maybe others can correct me) that math is treated as something you discover when you work on it as mathematician. It's a more intuitive model.

Funnily enough, that's what mathematicians have been doing all along. I wonder how many of them truly think that they construct something new that just happens to then have practical applications and fit nicely with everything else.

And then you open the details mentioned in those cookie banners and see literally 600, 700 entities that get data about you shared by the website.

Malicious compliance is not the law-maker's fault.

I've seen the questionnaires from Moscow streets in the last few years on the topics of war. I've seen what different people write in social networks about it.

Maybe you can trick our naive western friends, but not me.

Being an indifferent somnambula is not the same as being against war.

I will treat this comment charitably and just say that it's yet another case of "definition of X sounds good, so X can't be bad". I believe in reality it's less about "please don't kill us" and more about getting officials to set up the "pleas profit us" situation. Yes, money don't change hands in an office, so it's TECHNICALLY not a bribery.

This applies to a lot of scientific and practical (like construction) topics in general. Everyone relies on someone else (or something else) knowing what to do.

Ok, I checked what Go does. It indeed can generate runtime validators from types. Neat, TIL. I'd argue it's not by default a capability of statically typed languages, rather something that a language creator can choose to add via reflections or some other mechanisms. So in my mind it's not really static vs dynamic systems.

In Typescript you would need to use additional libraries like this: https://typia.io/

"every time I have to type "as" my inner Haskell programmer screams." - most of the times you don't have to. You choose to.

"If I could add one feature to Typescript it would be something like "as" that actually validates the result against the type system and can fail." - I don't think it's fair to expect that since most of the statically typed languages will not guarantee things in runtime unless you specifically run a validation code in runtime.

There's also type guards and good old self-written validation functions you can use.

TIL, thanks.

The 2nd point stands though. A person with good or perfect pitch will quickly tune to another frequency.

Clearly, it makes sense to have perfect pitch only in connection with a particular instrument for practical purposes.

Besides being a neat party trick, it gives more possibilities and makes things easier if a person wants to work with music professionally, especially with academical (aka "classical") music.

Is there anything about notes and instruments tuning that is not arbitrary? But hear me out: there's few hundred years tradition behind it, at least in the west, so why not follow it for a kid?

"I assume that if the learner drifts later in life by under a semitone, then things will seem like they're between keys." - problem that never occurred to anyone with a perfect or just good pitch.

Are you opposed to F35s only or to army spendings in general?

I feel that too many people are confusing arguments they agree with with logical arguments. Most of people, when they claim that something is rational or logical, actually mean that it's a position that they agree with.

I have no reason to believe that back in the day when internet was only for nerds the situation was different.

Learning to code just for fun is fun.

Learning to code just so you understand better the AI output makes sense.

Learning to code and making it your profession - I think times are really hard for juniors now. The bar will be high, especially considering systems thinking and general intelligence. Coding for work is not as much fun. Herding a bunch of LLM tools and trying to force them to make something you need is arguably not fun.

For what it's worth, I don't think those good old times of high salaries and relaxed work for developers will ever come back.

Just out of interest, are you coming from the area?

So the value it is producing is for you as the service provider on the hype. If the whole notion of "I set up a service because there was so much demand form friends" is even to be believed nowadays...

You think he implemented those thousands of integrations himself? Or maybe some particular tool was used that can be used again for implementing such things? Particular tool that so many of us use as well?

Lurkkit seems very nice!

Please, tell more?

Few reasons:

1. Habit. We're used to use Telegram for everything: news sources, social network, messaging, memes. Telegram has more capabilities than other apps. You can't realistically move your family and friends to another messaging app because of all of that and the network effect.

2. General attitude of all people towards privacy and sharing data: they don't really care. It's "Who would even care about my data?" and "I've got nothing to hide" all the way.

I doubt most of people ever thought about the topic of trusting a messaging app. It's not the framework they operate in.

There are two global psyops done by I don't know who:

1. That Bitcoin is safe and anonymous.

2. That Telegram is super safe for whatever shady or private stuff you want to do.

One of the best marketing campaigns ever.

I would also want to use this chance to alert everyone who uses Telegram that:

1. It's not e2e by default.

2. They use proprietary encryption protocol. You don't have access to code.

3. I don't think Telegram is profitable, I don't know how it can be with that scale. Which makes you wonder.

4. If you open in-message links, you have a chance of losing your account to hackers thanks to the old vulnerability that hasn't been fixed for years. You literally have to check the list of devices connected to your account every 12 hours if you want to be safe.

Oh man, this is my jam. I remember seeing this kind of puzzles in a Martin Gardner's book. Thank you :)

What an achievement.

Thank you for showing this. I am slowly working on a book with a similar goal as yours. Your book is very interesting and inspiring. Your work might have gone unnoticed by most, but not by me. Big respect for sticking to it and not giving up.