solomonb

Free Monads are also built on a tower of mathematical structures that come with laws and invariants. I have yet to see such formalization for transducers.

Would love if we could get a tool that performed the same analysis on an arbitrary site as the author's playwright test setup.

> If that's your experience, transducers are a pretty novel place in the trade-off space

That is not my experience and TBH I don't know what a lot of your terminology specifically means.

It seems like a messy abstraction whose results could be achieved through a variety of other tools. :/

I never understood what was so special about Clojure's Transducers. Isn't it essentially just applying a transformation on the lambda applied to a fold?

Does this mean you can use openclaw with a Claude Pro account? I'm curious try it but no way i'm going to pay API rates.

I've been wanting to make my own fish sauce for years at this point. I even found a huge crock to do it in. I've just never gotten it together to go to the fish market super early and source fish. What species do you use?

I think all you need is salt, fish, and a clay jar?

I mean you are kinda right but kinda wrong. To get a proof checker you take a typed lambda calculus and extend it with Pi, Sigma, and Indexed Inductive types while maintaining soundness.

Yes haskell's `bottom` breaks soundness, but that doesn't mean you need to take away some capability from the language. You just need to extend the language with a totality checker for the new proof fragment.

These fall directly out of ML.

i love lean4, best in class functional programming language. but i think its "perfectability" is kinda hamstrung by baking non-constructive axioms into the standard library. the kernel has to treat these as opaque constants that cannot be reduced.

i tend to stick with agda for doing mathy programming. i kinda want lean4 to replace haskell at some point in the future as the workhorse production typed fp language.

Still working on my LPFM radio station https://www.kpbj.fm/

We have over 60 shows now, rented a studio, and are in talks to security a site for our tower. I'm building out an online store but really need to focus on fundraising.

I actually find Gmail a better editor/grammar check then LLMs. It makes isolated simplifications/corrections that imo have minimal style impact and just focus on clarifying phrasing.

I'm not saying we are in one, but isn't a RAM shortage like this is exactly what one would expect at the early stages of a take off scenario?

Same. I've been using the same apple earbuds since like 2005(?). I still have the original plastic case for them and use it to store them in my backpack.

Yes Person of Interest is great! It starts kinda slow as a fairly generic police procedural but gets really epic by the end.

Does it change your perspective on agentic systems like Openclaw?

I keep coming back to Daniel Suarez' breakout novel. It feels so topical with the rise of agentic AI and I often wonder if when and when something like it could arise.

> Haskell is great, for what it's worth, but as with any language you have to reign in the AI's use of excessive verbosity. It will stack abstractions to the moon even for simple projects, and haskell's strengths for humans in this regard are weaknesses for AI - different weaknesses than other languages, but still, TANSTAAFL

I haven't had this problem with Opus 4.5+ and Haskell. In fact, I get the opposite problem and often wish it was more capable of using abstractions.

I've been using LLMs (Opus) heavily for writing Haskell, both at work and on personal projects and its shockingly effective.

I wouldn't use it for the galaxy brain libraries or explorations I like to do for my blog but for production Haskell Opus 4.5+ is really good. No other models have been effective for me.

Wow 2 in one day with Dan Simmons :(

Rest in peace.

I think its the same as stealing a bike or a car parked on the street. I don't know the subtleties but I don't think you can presume something is abandoned merely for being left on the street?

My whole point is about comparing electric/electronic instruments. I NEVER said that the guitar is the best acoustic instrument. I explained how there is a difference between the way a guitar works with a coil pickup versus other instruments with a contact mic but you don't care.

I don't really want to keep arguing with you. You can win the thread if you want. Congratulations!

Man I miss stack overflow. It feels so much better to ask humans a question then the machine, but it feels impossible to put the lid back on the box.

> What makes a guitar more expressive than a cello or trumpet with a pickup/mic running through effect

The difference lies in the pickup! On those other instruments you will be using a contact mic (piezo-transducer) wheras the solid body guitar is using an inductive coil.

The contact mic is going to pickup only physical resonance whereas the the coil is measuring an electromagnetic field. Plucking the steel string induces a change in voltage in the coil. This means that the coil can pickup all sorts of interesting electromagnetic interference from the tube amplifier that is all frequency dependent and involve that in whatever feedback loops are occuring.

Haha that is a great highly expressive counter example! However, as far as versatility of sound I still think the guitar+tube amp wins as you have access to all of western music theory and techniques as its still a traditional string instrument.

> So... use a reamp box to make it hiZ again?

That is going to be something like a transformer to step down your line level signal and some series resistance to match the load to help drive the amp.

An actual coil pickup has reactive impedance that is frequency dependent and will result in a more complex interaction between the devices.

> The pedals and system being dependent on the high impedance was always a bug, not a feature

Sure if you think like an engineer, but everything you are complaining about is what allows someone like Jimi Hendrix to do what he did with a guitar.

A modular synth is more versatile in terms of enumerated signal transformations. Its the ability to be expressive with those signal transformations that makes the guitar+tube amp what it is.

I'm talking about electronic instruments how they are deficient in expressiveness compared to your cello example.

> Secondly I think it's important to note the tube amp and the guitar are seperable, and I don't think that their connection is particularly magical. I can reamp a sound from my synthesizer (or maybe a keytar?) into a guitar chain, and if I manipulate the mic and other controls in the same way I might manipulate the pickup, I can also get all manner of interesting feedback effects.

The story is not quite so simple. Your synthesizer is going to have a buffered output so it wont have the complex impedance loading interactions with the amplifier as the guitar pickup.

This is actually critical to how early distortion effects such as the classic Fuzzface work and imo is essential for the kind of complex timbres you can produce with a guitar + tube amp.

In fact you can take an electric guitar, put a buffer pedal in the chain between your fuzz pedal and amp and completely destroy the ability to produce wild feedback and distortion.

I think you misunderstand my comment entirely. I'm not comparing electric to acoustic instruments at all.