jkarni

I worked on a similar project: a tool that (primarily) tees it's stdin to your tty before you decide how to continue your pipe[1], which is a little more general, though it's admittedly less polished or nice. I think there's an interesting space in making the process of writing commands more interactive, though doing that really well will involve an intelligent solution to the problem of commands with side effects.

[1] https://github.com/jkarni/extendp

What exactly are row types? I believe Ermine also features them, but searching doesn't yield very informative results.

But what you think of when you say "insight into the problem" might be an antiquated notion. It may be that such a thing is a rough measure of (as you almost say) how much more likely you are to prove something else (or how much easier it would be) -- without computer assistance.

But the twist is that with computer-aided proofs, being well-versed in the ways of using computers to help prove things may begin to count as having insight; and Coq (or whatever) programs may come to be studied so that one may gain insight, just as human proofs are studied today.

I think you're wrong, but am willing to be told otherwise. Here's why: one currency is not (generally) legal tender outside its country of origin, so there's an exchange rate determined roughly by the trade balance between countries etc. If all currencies were legal tender everywhere (a much more analogous) situation, the exchange rate would not be determined by the same factors, since the currency would in no way be pegged to the nation.

Then the question becomes: what does in fact determine the exchange rates? I.e., would one currency be "infinitely valuable" compared to all others? Which one? The first? Or would all of the stabilize at the point where 1 of A is always worth 1 of B, because that's easiest to work with?

This isn't obvious! See my comment to IgorPartola above.

It is a threat! If a there are a thousand indistinguishable block chains, it's (arguably[1]) as if the number of coins on a single blockchain were much bigger, which drives down the price. Since there's an infinite supply of new blockchains at more or less any price point (again, arguably), the price should be driven down to zero.

[1] Arguably, -there is, for instance, the question of whether arbitrary differentiators such as "being the first blockchain" suffice to make the blockchain market not perfectly competitive, - but this point needs to be (and as far as I can tell hasn't really been, here on HN) argued about. See http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/12/on-... for some references, though.

If I understand this correctly, is it really that worrying an argument? One can't use covert telephone recording (i.e., without two-party consent) as evidence in most states, and it's important that the person being recorded didn't intend for the conversation to be recorded and available in the future as evidence. Similarly, one would expect leaks to not hold up as evidence.

Much as I also dislike the ruling, the argument here seems quite reasonable to me.

Looks great (and has a great name to boot). Why Hugs though?

I'm convinced there's a one-line version of this article that is no less informative than the original.

Somewhat ironically, I would have appreciated it if the author had been under SMS/Twitter length constraints.

Not to Edward Lasker: "The rules of go are so elegant, organic and rigorously logical that if intelligent life forms exist elsewhere in the universe they almost certainly play go."

But presumably the computing cost would be much lower for the new coin, since it'd be earlier on in it's mining history. Who knows where the respective expected values stabilize.

Also, what if the new coin has some minor technical improvement? How do we know that won't outweight the established network effects?

One thing I never quite understood, but haven't really heard mentioned, is what makes this instance of a digital currency special. If I were to start another pool of bitcoins, with it's own mining etc. (like say, litecoin, but not necessarily technologically different from bitcoins) is the only disadvantage, from the perspective of adoption, that it wasn't the original, and is a little less prominent?

If so, I can empathize with the "losing faith" perspective. It only takes the tiniest bit of squinting to see bitcoins not at fundamentally limited, and therefore currency-worthy, but as completely unlimited.

First, presumably you mean Qf4, not Qe4 - there was no Qe4 in the game - and h4, not hh4. Second, you're the only chess-playing entity (human or computer) I've come across who thinks after Qf4 anyone is clearly lost (and I think it's almost as debatable that after h4 the position was winning). Third, at this level especially it's absurd to continue playing a rook down with no compensation.

Pity. 27. Ne2 looked really fun. If 27...Bf5, 28. Nf4! b1=Q? 29. Rxb1 Bxb1 30.Nd5 +-. If 27...Qa5, 28. Nf4 also. Strangely, the move didn't get mentioned in the Chessbase analysis, or the official commentary.

Yeah - my point is that this password hint is basically telling you that the user uses the same password for other things.

Yup. For instance, what might "Standard" mean here?

78113633-|--|-ksfolso@nsa.gov-|-UnFEG3IXPX+rjFQssxpQEA==-|-Standard|--

I don't think the existence of ELO means we should make more use of it - rather, it means we don't need a world championship if the objective is to measure who is best in the win=1 draw=0.5 loss=0 scheme of things (this is, I think, part of Someone's point above). Everyone in the chess world knows Carlsen is the better player, even before we know the results of this match. Likewise, we knew Kasparov and Fischer were the better players. But the matches against Karpov and Spassky were still phenomenal, because they involved psychological and technical depth that couldn't have existed in a mere "tally up the [bigger tournament/overall rating] points" system.

Also, 1-vs-1 gets beyond the ongoing debate about whether draws should count for 0.5 or less, which is nice. More specifically, the question of whether and how to reward being consistent (many draws, few wins and fewer losses) but rarely brilliant versus uneven but generally great isn't as pressing in a match, since it'd (likely) end up not mattering.

For Haskell too, with ghc-mod[1].

[1] https://github.com/eagletmt/ghcmod-vim

Are the first two points made in the article really legitimate? Central banks decrease interest rates in crises, so I wouldn't expect lower interest rates to be correlated with (or to be reason to increase your credence in) a bubble. And the past stock market prices alone being evidence for future prices? Doesn't that assume that the random-walk hypothesis (and the efficient-market hypothesis) are wrong?

I was thinking of H1B.

Yeah, sorry, I stand corrected.

This is pretty close to Knuth's discussion of Fibonacci Numbers in TAOCP. I'm inclined that's where this came from, and that this is missing an attribution.

In either case, if you enjoyed this post add one to the "I-should-read-TAOCP" (or "I-should-continue-reading-TAOCP") tally. I did...

Or: weeding out everyone who believes forms and bureaucracy shouldn't constitute a significant fraction of one's mental landscape, or who is offended by the extent to which the difficulty of the process makes it seem like the government doesn't want you here in the first place, or whose opportunities in other countries are close enough in attractiveness for the annoyance to tip the scale (presumably precisely the people you should most try to attract).

Though "weeding out" or "filtering" to any real extent clearly isn't all that much of a priority when a large part of the system is a lottery.

What? It has to be brought up everywhere. That's the whole point behind trying to change usage: people are supposed to start doing it, and then it's likely to brought to your mind.

Unless your point is that you're tired of it coming out as an explicit point for discussion, as in this current thread of the conversation. That's optional to the core of the effort.

I don't get your point. Obviously if it's a really bad convention (naming all predicates '{something}Th1s1sAFuncT10nThatReturnsABooleanValueAndILikeCheese', say), it might be worth breaking, even if it's initially distracting. Presumably you want to be making the point that this is a convention that isn't worth breaking?

I'm a little disappointed in HN for the fact that this is on the front page. The wikipedia article on Gall-Peters is much more accurate and informative, and even the whole (misleading) "oh look what I just found out but barely anyone else knew" thing with projections has been done before, and better (e.g., by Arno Peters himself).

I might take up the project of posting the relevant wikipedia links as stories, and in turn linking those in the comments of all shoddily written blog posts, in the hope of righting these wrongs.

http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/7.0.1/html/users_guide/type-... has a decent explanation.

I've always hoped some language would have a prolog type system. Just today, I was pointed to liquid types [1,2] in haskell-cafe, and they look really promising in that respect. But the idea of having my compiler bail with a nice error message when I try:

fibs = 0 : 1 : zipWith (+) fibs (tail fibs)

fibPlus :: (int LESSTHAN 30) -> (int LESSTHAN 500000) fibPlus x = fibs !! x + 100

Is definitely too good to be true.

[1]http://goto.ucsd.edu/~rjhala/liquid/liquid_types.pdf [2]http://goto.ucsd.edu/~rjhala/liquid/haskell/blog/about/

APL has its own codepage? I have to say, that's a better and simpler way of avoiding success at all costs than Haskell ever found.

Not that I dislike the idea -- on the contrary, I'm inclined to conclude from my excitement over this and Haskell that I dislike success...

Side note: Looks like the clip was lifted from "Tree of Life".