> "why is the state of education so abstract and uninspiring?" witch have a simple answer
They are answering why education is "so abstract and uninspiring", talking about the educational system specifically. Not peoples abilities. They are actually implying that people could understand if given the chance.
Hi, last time I checked out dagger, plans were built using CUE, has CUE been dropped? Dont see any mention of CUE anywhere. If so, is there a write up about the change of plan? Thanks
CUE support is not dropped: you can now choose between the Go or CUE SDK, depending on your preference. Both are visible in the docs: https://docs.dagger.io
The underlying Dagger Engine is language-agnostic: all SDKs eventually send requests to the same API, which is what makes this multi-language approach possible.
> No, Nim doesn't have stronger or weaker safety guarantees than Rust [1]. Rust's memory safety is nothing new, either. It is mostly that some older languages like C/C++ are the exceptions in not being memory-safe. There is nothing new or magical about memory safety. LISP was already memory-safe when it was invented in 1958. The only question is how much performance you need to trade away for it (the value is never zero for non-trivial programs, but can vary greatly, depending on whether the language was designed with it in mind or not).
> The main difference between Rust and other languages is that it does some more (but not all [2]) safety checks at compile time rather than at runtime. It also allows you to avoid GC, but does not provide you any memory safety over GC. Rust's borrow checker allows you to statically prove that references are live [3]; a GC simply avoids deallocating any memory that has a live reference to it (on the other hand, a GC can ensure that references remain live even where this is hard or impossible to prove statically). The end result is the same with respect to memory safety (the reason some people want to avoid GC is for performance reasons, not memory safety).
While it's true that memory safety has been done in a lot of languages for a long time this overstates the point. Doing memory safety at compile time is an important change that allows replacing C/C++ in a lot more situations. In the benchmarks game for example Rust has been the only language capable of breaking into the C/C++ league, even after very many years of investment into Java for example.
Rust also uses the same mechanisms to get compile time thread safety with full memory sharing between threads. Does any other language that doesn't have a global lock, throwing away most of the advantage, have that? There are actual new and interesting advantages to the compile time ownership model.
Benchmarks vary wildly but Haskell tends to perform in the same realm as C++, fwiw. It's GC'd, uses immutable data structures, and uses a green threading model that can be easily exploited by user code for extreme levels of parallelism with full memory safety. It's even possible to hold mutable references and share them across threads safely with STM (not a global lock).
If you want fully lock-free it might be possible to prove that with extensions like Liquid Haskell, via Linear types, and is definitely easier to prove with a theorem prover than it is, generally, for C++ code. Not sure about Rust though I realize quite a lot of its moving parts have already been formalized which is super cool.
There are reasons for using Rust but it's not the only game in town. And GC doesn't automatically mean pessimistic performance.
That's outdated information from 2016. Now Nim uses ARC/ORC. ARC implements memory management at compile time like Rust and it's still very fast at compiling.
> The main difference between ARC and Nim GCs is that ARC is fully deterministic - the compiler automatically injects destructors when it deems that some variable (a string, sequence, reference, or something else) is no longer needed. In this sense, it’s similar to C++ with its destructors (RAII). To illustrate, we can use Nim’s expandArc introspection (will be available in Nim 1.4).
> This shows one of the main ARC features: scope-based memory management. A scope is a separate region of code in the program. Scope-based MM means that the compiler will automatically insert destructor calls for any variables which need a destructor after the scope ends. Many Nim constructs introduce new scopes: procs, funcs, converters, methods, block statements and expressions, for and while loops, etc.
> ARC also has so-called hooks - special procedures that can be defined for types to override the default compiler behaviour when destroying/moving/copying the variable. These are particularly useful when you want to make custom semantics for your types, deal with low-level operations involving pointers, or do FFI.
--gc:arc/--mm:arc has been around for a couple years (as per that blog post link) and fairly stable for >1 year. It is slated to become the default automatic memory management strategy in Nim-2.0. The hope is to release 2.0 this year.
You can always make it your own personal default with older versions (e.g. nim-1.6), by editing your $HOME/.config/nim/nim.cfg to say so or doing similar on per project/file basis.
"the dude" implies I actually personally did it, reached in and deleted his blog or whatever your claim is. "go google" is not much of a response when you made the ill-specified claim.
What was your specific claim? Note that I'm not the only one asking you.
And the important point, since you made it on this post: how does your claim relate in any way to Buterin?
I was called by Cade Metz well after Siskind pulled the blog - I didn't seek him out - which is why I'm asking how precisely I cancelled him.
(There were arguments for revealing his name in the NYT (mostly that it was already very public, entirely by Siskind's own hand, as directly linked to SSC) and arguments against it (mostly that the NYT is a different scale of publicising it).)
Direct question: do you know what this claim of me cancelling Siskind could mean, since OP doesn't seem able to answer? Also, wtf it has to do with Buterin. Siskind is certainly one of the "There are a million of these guys, and they all have long and wordy blogs" reasoners from first principles rather than knowing things that I was talking about in the linked post, but there are (as I say) a heck of a lot of them.
> Direct question: do you know what this claim of me cancelling Siskind could mean, since OP doesn't seem able to answer?
That I'm not sure on: I wasn't asking to accuse you of cancelling Siskind, I was asking to hear your description of the events. Given you have actual descriptions of events in a chronology, I tend to believe your story on this one.
> Also, wtf it has to do with Buterin.
Well, nothing--it was an ad hominem attack on you by the poster. It's Hacker News: a lot of people here are capitalist to the point of sociopathy, and will defend any money making venture even if it means abandoning ethics, logic, evidence, and/or social acceptability. You lost the respect of most of Hacker News, but have you seen the guys these people respect?
> Siskind is certainly one of the "There are a million of these guys, and they all have long and wordy blogs" reasoners from first principles rather than knowing things that I was talking about in the linked post, but there are (as I say) a heck of a lot of them.
I don't get the feel that Siskind was just reasoning from first principles--that was some of what he did on SSC, but I do think he knew a lot as well (and, given he has a doctorate, there's at least a few people who agree on that point). If anything, I think what I got a lot of from SSC was the opposite: using knowledge to figure out what the first principles are.
As for there being a lot of these guys and a lot of words: I'm not sure why I should care about either of these criticisms.
Thanks for sharing, this is great. Firefox on Android has some support for bookmarklets, you can search for them in the address bar. This is more convenient. Why didn't this get more appreciation?
Bad timing on the New page, I guess. Also, after posting, a couple of days later I realized there was already another PWA for this [1]. I'm glad I didn't find it earlier though so I wasn't discouraged to build my own. I'm glad my implementation handles a certain edge case better I realized: sharing from Spotify doesn't result in a `"null"` title but `""` instead.
> If the passenger had declared it, they probably would have avoided the fine entirely
They definitely would not have been fined. Declaring you have something is essentially saying "Look I have this, is it allowed?" if its not allowed they can safely destroy it.
Usually they wont give a fine like this unless there is very wilful attempt to lie and conceal the item, or this is not the first time.
This is a easier write, easier to read, compatible with JSON Schema alternative. Spartan Schema could be used instead of JSON Schema to make the document easier for humans to work with.
Yes you can get a place for $300-$600 a month but it won't be so easy to find anything more than a single room at that price, you may get a kitchen but it takes a bit more looking depending on the area. The kitchen will be outdoors, not like a western kitchen.
If you want a real "villa" with a living room then you should at least double that price, and it will be an outdoor living room, with bugs and heat. A villa with an indoor living room is quite rare.
Taxi's are cheap, 30 min taxi ride is more like $3, using an app, but if you use a local taxi then $10, and it will take 30 min just to go a few kms because the traffic is so bad.
The roads in Bali were not planned and many were just paths between rice fields that have been turned into a narrow two lane road. In many cases a car will have to pull over just to let through passing car past.
The beaches and not good, especially around Canggu, with black stand and trash and dog shit. The beaches down south are much better but that part of Bali is very over developed.
They are answering why education is "so abstract and uninspiring", talking about the educational system specifically. Not peoples abilities. They are actually implying that people could understand if given the chance.