philh

philh's Comments

A taxonomy of Cruxes

I think they mean "should that "not" be there at all?"

Why We Age, Part 2: Non-adaptive theories

Perhaps I'm missing the point, but doesn't "because the juvenile needs to fit inside at least one parent" mostly suffice as an answer?

What aspects of the world emotionally bothers you on an immediate personal level on a daily basis?

Conflict theorists, cashed out as something like "people who saw the article as an attempted power grab and so upvoted the person attacking it" feels like it fits, but... I dunno, I try to be hesitant to use conflict theory as an explanation, because it's so easy to make it fit. On the other hand, that doesn't mean it's wrong.

I appreciated your words more than I would have done upvotes; thank you.

What aspects of the world emotionally bothers you on an immediate personal level on a daily basis?

Perhaps, but... I honestly can't tell what opinion that would be.

Like, a thing I appreciate about the commenter is that they're admirably straightforward. They say what they think and don't try to weasel out of it later. I don't love that they're deliberately trying to hurt me (seemingly without checking if they could accomplish their goals some other way), but at least they're upfront about it. It seems to me that there's unusually little room for misinterpretation here.

And yet, so much of what they're saying is completely out there, and I just don't believe that most people agree with it.

I could believe that most people agree, at least unreflexively and perhaps after consideration, with "OSS maintainers have no responsibility". (And possibly even with "no responsibility at all without consent".) But I think most of them would not bite the bullets that this user does.

Like, I could see someone saying "they don't have a responsibility here, but they still shouldn't deliberately introduce bugs to brick people's OSes, and it's totally reasonable for people to complain if they do". And then there's a conversation about what does responsibility even mean, and maybe it turns out we don't mean the same thing by it and don't really disagree that much, or maybe we actually do have some important disagreements. But that's not at all where the conversation went.

I don't believe most people agree with "If someone deliberately bricks a bunch of people's OSes, and then stops doing that, you call them generous". I don't even believe most people agree with the earlier bit about deliberately bricking OSes not being something to complain about.

I could believe that most people agree, at least unreflexively and perhaps after consideration, that I'm being too demanding. I included a list of quotes to say "no, really, I'm demanding very little", but I could see someone thinking I'm demanding more than I realize, or thinking I'm being dishonest about how much I'm demanding, or something. But that's not where the conversation went either. That user doesn't obviously think either of those. They call me a narcissist, but not a liar. They don't say that the opt-outs I offer are burdensome.

I don't believe that most people agree with the thing about "if I have a habit of offering to vacuum for people and not showing up, no one has the right to ask me why".

So to the extent those comments express an opinion held by /r/programming at large, I think they also express much more extreme opinions that /r/programming doesn't hold.

(I could be missing something, of course. I don't trust myself to see clearly here.)

What aspects of the world emotionally bothers you on an immediate personal level on a daily basis?

Lately it's a reddit argument I had recently.

Not just the argument itself. One asshole I could deal with. The fact that people upvoted them...

Like, there's nothing that particularly stands out to me about /r/programming readers. As far as I know they're generally fairly normal humans. And a bunch of generally fairly normal humans apparently thought that those comments were good?

:(

Haskenthetical

Yes, thanks! Someone on reddit also pointed me at purescript.

I've realized that since the only language I know with extensible records is Elm, it doesn't say much that I don't know any with open variants.

Haskenthetical

I think I basically agree. If I had to pick a chief benefit (which I don't) I'd say that it enables easy macros - but it does that because it's easy to parse and represent as Lisp data, so to some extent it just depends what level you feel like looking at.

Haskenthetical

It's partly the point.

I'm not confident in this answer, but... I don't think I'd prefer Haskell-of-2020 if you straight up switched it to Lisp syntax. But if you took an early version of Haskell, switched that to Lisp syntax, and then continued evolving that through to 2020, I think I might like that better than actual Haskell-of-2020. (Assuming it managed to get a comparable amount of effort put into it, which is dubious. Not everyone likes Lisp syntax. And assuming the effort was directed by a comparable amount of... taste?, which is also dubious. Like, you're making the language design process more individualistic but also more democratic, there's no way that doesn't have some effect on what you end up with. I don't have strong opinions on whether the effect is good overall.)

What are your greatest one-shot life improvements?

On a similar note, I use a kinesis advantage; I had to choose between that and an ergodox and expected to like it slightly more, but I can't actually compare.

I've set it up so that if I hold caps lock, I can control the mouse with my right hand. Not as fluidly as I'd like, at least partly due to (what I believe to be) bugs in the xkb code implementing such things. I can only move 100px at a time. But I also have focus-follows-mouse, and that makes it really easy to jump between two windows, which by itself is a decently big win.

caps lock also mirrors the right side of the keyboard to the left, letting me type (slowly) with one hand and mouse with the other. I haven't ended up using that much though.

Zoom Technologies, Inc. vs. the Efficient Markets Hypothesis

that time the market proved to be incapable of doing addition.

The caveat from the link that this mistake couldn't be arbitraged seems important.

I need to resist the temptation here to leap from "can't be exploited" to "therefore not stupid", because that's not what you mean by stupid. But I think it seems important even if I resist that temptation.

Load More