oslac

Is there still no type theoretic answer to unit testing? Does not the type or the class generally contain all the necessary information to unit test itself, assuming its a unit? That is, we should not have to even write these "theoretically". Just hit "compiler --unit_test <type>"

Any number that cannot be effectively computed does not exist; there are actual hard physical limits to Numbers.

They don't let you know this, but you can just delete your "I read this later" backlog. You're not going to finish it, or read any of it.

I tried a few, but (nearly) default Obsidian won me over by simplicity, ease-of-use.

It's also bad because you have to, as a programmer, actually type out the types a lot (compared to say, Ocaml, Haskell or Rust), and like you say, it makes it impossible to read.

Prerequisites are mostly fake. You can just study what you need - depth first learning (assuming you are open to self-studying and this is not about academic bureaucracy)

This isn't a new phenomena, and does not differ at all from a normal non-tech person getting their information from Google Search. Hidden motivations for this push left as an exercise for the astute reader.

Mock has expectations about how the function is called. If you read a file from a disk, and you expect it only to be done once, a mock is "usable" in this scenario to count the number of invocations. Note that there aren't outside, observable, state changes or behavior involved in this. It is about the non-functional introspection.

Fake is just a simple implementation, like in-memory db to stand-in for a real one. In the optimal case, provided by library authors.

Coffee Nap is probably amongst the top 3 refreshing things I know of.

For public discussion, places like Zulip, Slack and Discord are fucking abysmal since they can hardly be googled and usually have stronger circle jerking in them.

Only instability introduced so far was by the subs going private. For some communities that are already notoriously unstable, this is not a particularly good look and makes me reconsider things.

This is the actual, realizable AI risk: combining several badly understood complex systems that shape populations and lives.

Not the Skynet.

Build / buy an old enough computer.

This is a good intuition, Rust's references can be thought of as a r/w locks.

Hard to believe people look at this Chat UX with LLMs as a good interface. Look at the amount of blabbering in the example - why?

Governments cannot even do little local control such as inflation, and people have these fancy ideas about controlling the *temperature* of the entire Earth. Ideas about ulterior motives left as an exercise to the reader.

Having read through the old version I cannot recommend that one either.

It is for these (tooling / library) reasons it is almost impossible to recommend it for any project, almost like Nix in that regard for me.

I would say it is minimal, the help it provides. It will not get you to B1.

Why call it "OpenAI" when it is probably the biggest blackbox thing out there.

I agree.

I would not call Duolingo a language learning application. It behaves more like language mimicry application. You learn a very particular subset of the language that I'd call "Duolingo <insert lang>". This is my conclusion after using it for two non-English languages.

You seriously need a basic beginner book if starting from fresh, and use Duolingo just as a repetition tool when you can during the day

Tending to a digital garden of your own making has been the most effective for me by far. No other organization beyond that, at most hitting a random note inside a subfolder for 10-15 minutes a day.

It sounds like a good idea to send your codebase through a MITM to OpenAI, both of these ideas I mean.

Not a perfect example, but this can be seen (pattern match replacing if) with Kotlin's when.

One of the best articles about programming tbh.

Aha, yet another tutorial since nobody can agree on anything about it seems. I can set up a nice development environment within VSCode using development containers in like 2 or 3 clicks that I can just yeet to to my GitHub for anyone to use and you don't need this kind of PhD for it.

For an average programmer or team, this stuff needs to be heavily, massively, streamlined / centralized to a single Best Practice.

It would be nice if it was as easy to use as VSCode / Obsidian, but alas. I will not learn a second language for using it and I will not paste mystery snippets from blogs and other sources to get something done.

It is amusing how history is being now rewritten as "We All Always Agreed Lab Leak Was the Real Source".

rust compiler, rust-analyzer, the top rust crates (ie. rand is a great example)