stefncb

It's not. The self-hosted compiler still uses llvm, and it's still slow because of it.

Gimp still does that, it's rather useful if you want to play around with images without a loader.

My point was that categorizing limbs (differentiating them from one another) is done by function. Now that I think about it limb isn't what I had in mind anyway, what I meant to say was that we categorize parts of the body in terms of function.

But you're right, limbs are not defined by function.

Since we're going into this meta-philosophical thing, your statement is false. If I call a tail a leg, dogs definitely have five legs. Unless they were of course born without a leg, or have otherwise lost one. There is no "reality" from a human perspective, it's all sensory input that goes through a lot of very subjective processing.

You can't _really_ categorize things. You can mostly sort of do it, but it never actually works out, because categories are human stuff, and human stuff is subjective and thus different depending on who you ask. Sometimes unclear even to the same person.

I can say dogs have five legs and the only reason most people will think I'm wrong is that society has come to categorize limbs based on function instead of length.

This is all in theory. Everyone says this like it's already here but it's really not (in the sense that these fast jits are still mostly worse than well-written C).

But what it is is mostly choosing optimizations based on runtime characteristics. It's a dynamic analogue to profile-guided optimization. Like you might have an optimization that trades code size for CPU cycles, which you could choose not to do at runtime if you're low on memory bandwidth instead of CPU time. Stuff like that.

That's a just-in-time compiler.

What's your native language?

That's no different than writing a traditional program and using big arena allocators for everything instead of individual allocations, except it's more complicated for no apparent reason.

It happens in any other language too, at least for me. Sometimes you have a thought but can't quite put it into words. My guess is that it's simply more pronounced in Ithkuil.

Also, anecdotally, my inner monologue is sometimes behind my "real" thoughts. I can think faster than I can speak, even in my own head.

Unfortunately, not always. If it's from a book you only get the title & ISBN.

As for ChatGPT, I don't think it's even possible to do it with the current model. They have absolutely no idea where a piece of information came from.

Yes, I learned the length of it after I wrote the comment.

300 meters.

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2023/04/28/germanys-first-photov...

And this doesn't count the fact that you're providing shade for cyclists as well. I wonder how expensive it would've been to make a simple roof just for shade; I imagine your value per meter goes up significantly considering that.

They maybe stumbled upon it and found it interesting. There's often no need for context, it can simply be an interesting article to read.

They meant using the equal operator, because floating point is inexact and can produce different representations for the same number depending on how it was obtained. Greater and less than are fine. Equal is usually implemented by seeing if a number fits inside a tight range.

But what if I live somewhere remote without internet access? Such a simple thing as using the phone shouldn't be impossible.

Just FYI, you sometimes can't reply to very new comments, the button appears after a few minutes :)

I see less banks as being strictly worse. It's the same as with any other company. Yes that's less efficient, but it's the only way to prevent individuals from having too much power. Because almost anyone with that kind of power will eventually give in. Just look at tech companies; I, for one, am not satisfied with the status quo.

There are two ways to have a functioning society. One is to have very few very powerful people, and only choose the right leaders. The other is to have very many people with very little power. That's less efficient, but it's also much less risky.

We currently run on the first. It's not going well. I'm not aware of a time when we ran on the second. In my mind that's the only way.

I don't understand the downvotes. I thought the same thing. I agree with the other complaint on the error for too few arguments being unfortunate, but the one with too many arguments is on point.

That would imply it's out of date, which it apparently isn't. The website itself doesn't need updating if it stays relevant.

Weird, it's always worked perfectly for me. Now that I think about it I haven't updated in a long time, and after this I probably won't.

We can tell if something is red or blue, but red and blue are huge spectra. That's like telling the first third of a piano keyboard from the second. Even I can do it. Absolute pitch is more like telling exactly what wavelength it is (to a certain degree of course). Most people can't do that.

It's only removed if sudo doesn't send mail. It still warns if it's relevant.

Licensing issues, keeping the door open to making it not free again, greed, lack of understanding from management/lawyers/whatever, not wanting to deal with contributions (though here you can do what SQLite does), false sense of security, etc.

I assume GP regretted sharing it, so maybe you shouldn't?

Yeah I think our arguments overlap in some ways.

> That's all. Because our current languages are this way doesn't mean that the two concepts cannot be reconciliated or that one is just better than the other.

I don't think I agree with this though, I believe they're fundamentally different. The whole point of structural constraints is that they don't need the type to be aware of them. The point of nominal constraints though is that they require the type to explicitly acknowledge them.

In an ideal situation, everyone names and types things the same ('logical') way, so structural constraints 'just work'. A type implements has_organ, and an interface requires has_organ, and the type is automatically compatible with the interface.

A nominal system is the opposite though; the type explicitly understands what a specific interface implies and formally states it.

I just can't see how there's a subset-superset relationship, or how they can somehow be reconciled.

A nominal type system is not a more constrained version of a structural one. That statement would imply that any program written for the former would work using the latter as well, which is false. Name collisions would simply not resolve.

For it to work, you need to add a namespace to all the colliding methods (a simple one would be a prefix like people do in C).

A nominal system is a more constrained structural system in some ways, but the opposite is true as well, so it's not as simple as 'nominal is subset of structural'.

We use "tribord" and "babord" in romanian.

In a nominal type system, a method x() is part of the interface X, while in a structural one it's part of the implementor of said interface. In Go there's a Human.HasOrgan(), not an AbstractBody.HasOrgan().

A consequence of this is that in Rust, which has a nominal system, you can implement two traits that contain a method with the same name and are required to disambiguate at the call site. In Go you can't do that, since the method is part of the concrete type.

That seems way over the top. An ultrasonic sensor is really not a difficult thing.