ghkbrew

Yes, but it but humans have been afraid that machines would replace them since long before Frank Herbert wrote about it. For example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite

This is true. Though I believe GHC is pretty aggressive about unboxing (when posible), but don't quote me on that.

Another possible gotcha is that by default Haskell records introduce a named accessor function into the surrounding scope. So defining two records with a `name` field next to each other is an error

This abstract says only that they've reduced the need for exotic matter by some orders of magnitude. Presumably it's still required.

However, there were some recent papers describing warp drive geometries with only positive mass.

Ex: https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.00652

In addition to /u/dekhn 's excellent description, this phenomenon is referred to as a protein's "secondary structure" [0]

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_secondary_structure

Are you aware of the meaning of the word "git"?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/git

I don't see an etymology of the name on the site, so I'll just assume they misspelled "tuit" [0]

[0] https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/round_tuit

I'm having a hard time seeing much danger in that. If your threat model assumes the attacker already has your public key having an easily guessable public key doesnt give them any more information.

My biggest worry would be some sort of spoofing. An attacker may be able to impersonate you (or rather a server you control) if they generate a similar vanity key and convince a 3rd party to accept it as yours.

You interact with it through a web browser. So the server software can be installed on a computer without a display.

It's technically correct I guess, but not terribly relevant.

"I wish you were here." is grammatically correct in English. And yes it is the "subjunctive mood". Its meaning is closer to "I wish for you to be here" than "I wish you had been here".

This random page I found on the internet has a pretty decent explanation of the subjunctive:

https://www.learngrammar.net/a/examples-of-the-subjunctive-m...

Caffeine is a diuretic (it makes you urinate more). So the increased fluid intake is somewhat offset by increased output.

Carnot is for heat engines. So the maximum efficiency of converting a heat differential into kinetic energy.

This is converting electricity into kinetic energy and vice versa. So it'd be the product of those two maximum efficiencies, whatever they are.

This is how you end up with $500 toilet seats, though.

If something can't be profitably made in the US then the only production for it will be explicitly for the government. And it will be a de facto monopoly and priced accordingly.

Maybe that's a tradeoff you're willing to make to make sure that there is always someone in the US who can make toilet seats. I would rather it be a more nuanced decision than a blanket mandate.

Now they need to register every aaaa... domain from ~20-50 characters so all you need to do is hold the "a" key for a little bit.

I may have missed it while skimming the article, but I saw no mention of how accurate the ML model was.

It may look like the results of a high fidelity simulation, but how useful is that?

"Begging the question"[0] is a logical fallacy where you provide an answer to a question that depends on first assuming the answer is correct. i.e. a circular argument.

That was intentional?

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Type errors are whatever your type system defines them to be. It's perfectly reasonable to define a type error as "code that would throw an error if executed".

I think abstract interpretation is more abstract than you are thinking. It essentially means stepping through the code only keeping track of "abstract" properties of the program state. I.e. keeping track of variable types rather than values. This does mean that a function can have a different type based on how it's called, but there's an entire class of "flow sensitive" type systems with that property.

It sounds like a good idea. But people are a fractious bunch who can't completely agree on anything. Certainly not on what is and isn't "misinformation".

I don't think giving someone(s) the power to ban information they think is harmful is going to be the net win for democracy you want. The first amendment to the constitution seems to agree with me.

I'd imagine keeping people in the ecosystem is plenty reason. Sharing sites live and die by their creators, who are a small fraction of the users. Making life marginally more convenient for them should have disproportionate returns.

I disagree. Leeway in sentencing is to allow the court to better match the severity of punishment to the severity of crime when someone is convicted of crime which can cover a wide variety of behavior. Not to punish someone for crimes they weren't convicted of.

That entirely depends on how you define things. We are each a ship of Theseus[0]. What happens if I slowly replace my organic parts (even my brain) with cybernetics. When do I stop being me?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

> RT-qPCR is directly a O(2^N) signal.

The signal is actually more like N*2^C where C is the number of cycles (usually around 30). So a huge amplification, but still linear in the starting amount, i.e. O(N). That's actually more useful, generally, since ratios of amplified material stay approximately constant during amplification.

"less common" is a bit of an understatement[0]. I'd put it in the "common misspelling" category. Though both versions seem to have been around since before English really had consistent spelling.

[0] https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=adaption%2Cada...

completely off topic, but I'm reminded of "They're Made out of Meat" [1]

[1] http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/TheyMade.sh...

GAN[0] as a service?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_adversarial_network

> The $ operator is definitely confusing in Haskell

I generally think of it as a sort of open-ended parentheses that encloses the rest of the line. Instead of a backward pipe. It means "evaluate everything after this character first then apply the preceding function to it" just like parentheses would.

    print $ even $ 4 * 2

is equivalent to

    print ( even ( 4 * 2 ))

> why these should be allowed to exist

Because that's the default state, in our society at least. If you want something banned/made illegal/etc you need a compelling argument for why it shouldn't be allowed to exist.

If we're comparing culteral/linguistic spheres of influence, then the US side should also include Canada, the UK, Australia, etc.

I know the line is blurry, but I disagree that clumps of iron oxide nanoparticles rise to the level of "robot"

> But in Bayes' formula, their plans if something else had happened cannot ever affect how we adjust our inferences

That's not how statistics works. Frequentist p-values and Bayesian inferences are both entirely dependent on the mathematical model in question. "Their plans if something else had happened" are a key part of the model. What you're describing at 2 entirely different experiments:

1) A couple has children until they have 1 of each gender. they have 7 children. How likely is a result this extreme (or greater)?

2) A couple has 7 children. They have a gender ratio of 6:1. How likely is a result this extreme (or greater)?

It's call market segmentation.

A seller want to sell their good to every buyer at exactly the highest price that buyer is willing to pay. The seller can't do that if they give everyone the same price so they look for ways to segment the buyers into groups which have similar valuations and charge each group a different price.

If you pay attention, most pricing schemes are about market segmentation. Region locked items is obviously one. Most digital goods are sold at prices that decrease over time: it's basically segmenting the market by time. Buyers with high valuations buy first, those with lower valuations buy later, etc.