explaininjs

Verizon after 60GB is 600kbps on 5G/4G but up to 3Mbps on UWB. Pretty reasonable IMO. It’s AT&T that’s the holdout, 128k regardless of plan, after 60GB.

I did in fact follow the link. I actually went further than you, all the way to the GitHub, where I saw that it was actually just a web app. All TS.

And you can 100% load PWAs offline, which might be slightly more progressive than your idea of a web app, but I hope not overly so.

That’s a web app, it’s on them if they don’t want to offer their services without requiring me to let them out of the web sandbox.

As someone who does a ton of networking/routing at the link layer for a day job, I can definitely see why they’re taking measures to reduce bandwidth hogs - to the extent I might actually prefer to be on a network that has taken measures to reduce hogging vs one that has not.

When it really truly matters, like when I have a business need to download huge items in remote areas, the $10/GB+ justifies itself.

Curious what you want from a jailbreak at this point? It seems all of the old things that were actually helpful have found them into first party software, or at least in the sanctioned third party. (internet tethering, emulators, side loaded apps, etc.)

I should not need to explain to you that the problem is when b itself is internally an (m b’). Or when it is a sum of many types, of varying m-nests.

I can assure you that JS libraries work with Promises just fine.

This is all besides the root topic though, which is that CPS and Monads are isomorphic. Which is true. Promises are a different thing.

We might consider promises “applied monads” or “engineered monads”. Monodic in inspiration and they solve the same core problem, but they aren’t straightjacketed into the ivory tower “laws” in absolutely every edge case (they do satisfy them in the vast majority of cases). Which is good, because it means we never need to write things like “await await await await await foo()”

There is one particular edge case in which they do not satisfy the laws. That happens to make them much more practical in day to day coding than a strict interpretation would be.

If you’re fine with manually checking a standard interface to see if you should abort, JS’s answer is the AbortController. This is supported by features like the “fetch” function for making cancellable http requests.

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/AbortContro...

Show me a JS library that allows you to swap a non-async call for an async one in a non-async context^ and I’ll eat my hat.

^Without any non-local changes, obviously.

No… I fear you’ve missed the entire point of the matter, which is that async/await requires that you must go all the way up the call stack explicitly “await”ing things when you have introduced an “async” call (or similar wide spread changes to that effect). There’s no special magic utility function you can call you hide it away. That’s the whole point – and a very good thing, this thread argues.

No… that’s the whole point. If you change them to be async, the language forces you to go and rethink what implications that has for the callers. This is a good thing, dumbly sequenced operations are terrible UX. And UX is far more important than whatever it is they call “DX”.

That sounds a lot like async/await. Any errors thrown in an async context bubble to the callsite awaiting it.

Indeed. And breakpoints and stepping across concurrent context actually works in JS, which is nice.

Yes. That blog has probably done more to negatively impact the industry than any other written work I know.

F# first actually. Then C#. Then Haskell. Then Python. Then TypeScript. Parent just has an axe to grind.

Coming from a heavy TS background into a go-forward company, I’d say the main thing you get with async is it makes it incredibly obvious when computation can be performed non-sequentially (async…). For example, It’s very common to see the below in go code:

   a := &blah{}
   rA, err := engine.doSomethingWithA()
   b := &bloop{}
   rB, err := engine.doSomethingWithB()

This might have started out with both the doSomethings being very quick painless procedures. But over time they’ve grown into behemoth network requests and very thing is slow and crappy. No, it’s not exactly hard to spin up a go routine to handle the work concurrently, but it’s not trivial either - and importantly, it’s not immediately obvious that this would be a good idea.

Contrast to TS:

   let a = {blah}
   let [rA, err] = engine.doSomethingWithA()
   let b = {bloop}
   let [rB, err] engine.doSomethingWithB()

Now, time passes, you perform that behemoth slowing down of the doSomethings. You are forced by the type system to change this:

   let a = {blah}
   let [rA, err] = await engine.doSomethingWithA()
   let b = {bloop}
   let [rB, err] await engine.doSomethingWithB()

It’s now immediately obvious that you might want to run these two procedures concurrently. Obviously you will need to check the engine code, but any programmer worth their salt should at least seek to investigate concurrency when making that change.

I wouldn’t be bringing this up if I hadn’t made 10x+ performance improvements to critical services within a month of starting at a new company in a new language on a service where the handful of experienced go programmers on the team had no idea why their code was taking so long.

> You basically have to give up on the idea of ever having any real evidence for one thing over another

Exactly. We agree.

> best explanations we could find

We have no tested explanation of abiogenesis, chiefly. Among many other questions. Lots of theories that say “and throw your hands up and wave them around and wait 8 million years and tada, probably, idk”

God intervening in the universe is a potential source of sudden changes in the laws of physics. For instance changes that allow a man to walk on water or split a sea. Those changes are stepwise, they do not impact space time gradually. Thus non-differentiable. If the change was gradual, evolutionists would come up with a formula for it and say it magically is that way, for “reasons”. They might look at how their laws of gravity work and see that they aren’t right for galaxies, and say the reasons are “dark matter”, for example. I might say they’re God working exerting a differentiable influence, but those two are interchangeable, at least on the surface. It’s only the stepwise that is Godly.

That is the belief that leads to evolutionism, not the exact definition of evolutionism. A necessary precondition.

I don’t have time to explain basic mathematics. Suffice to say, the concepts of changing over time and differentiating are very related. If you didn’t know that… that explains a lot I suppose.

I still don’t know what your point is, by the way. Maybe we should settle that.

The evidence is clear to anyone with eyes: the intricately designed statue. It should be obvious to anyone that it was created, as it was for millennia across the entire world. It’s only after centuries of forced re-education that people began to think the dust randomly settled in the shape of a beautiful statue.

Why are you assigning malice? Just because the omnipresent being designed things a particular way but wishes to be known on faith rather than an explicit name tag doesn’t mean he’s “screwing with us”, as you seem so want to repeat.

Frankly I don’t even know what point you’re trying to make. I was very clear in my goal for this thread, and it has very clearly been achieved to any onlooker. If you’re too deep in your argument to see it… yes, precisely.

Go on then, explain this nondifferentiable constant case I was missing.

> people will notice

What does this mean? People who don’t know what they’re talking about will get their feathers all ruffled and start rambling about missing the case of nondifferentiable constants? I guess I should have expected as much. But that is, indeed, my point: evolutionists get stuck against the wall just the same as the rest of the religions the GP mentioned.

It would seem we are in agreement. Your science cannot find the designer if the designer does not wish to be found by your science. That doesn’t mean we can say they do or do not exist. Thus: creationism and evolutionism, the two sides of the coin.

Again, I said “X might be the observed outcome of someone were to believe Y”, and you’ve interpreted that as me leaping to the conclusion that you believe Y.

But your argument is still circular and faith based. There’s no concrete framework whereby your view is “simpler”, but if you already hold it you will perhaps feel that it is. I personally feel Genesis 1 is simpler than anything any scientist has come up with, and I choose to believe it is more correct as well. But I’m not so far down the rabbit hole to not see that other beliefs are equally well supported.

But that’s all missing the main point, which is that science has no way to determine origins, and there’s no way an experiment could get us closer to determining the past. The past is outside the domain of scientific knowledge, as it cannot be experimentally verified. Experimental verification being the cornerstone of science.

Consider I construct a beautiful statue in a room. You awake in the room and attempt to understand the origin of the statue. You observe it for aeons and collect many measurements about its state. You observe that over time, a layer of dust has settled on the statue, clinging to its entire surface evenly. Looking at all your scientific observations, you conclude that many millions of years ago, there was nothing. Then over time, layers and layers of dust settled. Over enough years, you posit, a statue must have formed. It seems surprising, sure. How could this chaotic dust make a beautiful statue? But the science is clear: nothing else has ever been observed that could cause that statue to exist, and winding back the clock millions of years from the observations you make would indeed produce nothing. Thus this is the simplest explanation, so no matter how unbelievable, it is what we must accept barring anything better. What’s that you say? An intelligent being might have designed the statue and put it there for you to observe? Preposterous: we have no evidence of such an intelligent designer. All we have is this beautiful statue.

People caricaturize to being attention to noteworthy attributes, that does not imply a value judgment. But I could see how you might come to that conclusion if you were of the opinion that everything different from you is worse. I however am not of that opinion.

And I believe people are free to pick any axioms that suit them, it is incorrect to say that “I believe they are false”, rather I accept they are axiomatic assumptions equivalent but distinct from those I have made. And I preach so that the folks making them might accept the same.

You’re reaching for a lot that quite simply isn’t there.

Also, I don’t have an issue with “believing science is always right”, I happen to think the scientific process science produces correct results myself. What I contest is the idea that evolutionism itself is somehow “scientific”, as the folks who believe it like to claim. There is quite simply no evidence of it that doesn’t require first axiomatically assuming the conclusion. But that axiom is so fundamental to many evolutionist’s world views that they do not fully consider its ramifications.

I’m happy to sift through a .cpuprofile and create an intelligent actionable summary of it if I’m at work and that’s the job they’re paying me to do. And very often they do pay me quite handsomely for my ability to do just that!

But if I’m not at work, I frankly don’t care enough. A single button “take trade for 1 second and send it to GPT4” is the level of effort I’m willing to freedom dedicate to these folks’ crap.

This makes me want an LLM that traces every line of code running on a site and provides a summary…

“when you scrolled the page 2 pixels just now, it triggered 500 network requests to various tracking sites. additionally, it forced redrawing the site 3 times, and consumed 400ms of GPU time.”

To the extent there are empirical studies demonstrating evolution, I and many creationists besides me believe them too.

Where the faith of evolutionists lies is in taking those studies showing the most minuscule changes then saying “look, small changes have occurred by random mutation. we know of no other mechanism by which anything might occur, therefore this is how everything was created! what, you don’t trust the science?? heresy!”