That’s not “a fix”, that’s called “a practical workaround” which is used in the real world all the time.

What aspects of coding?

Turing Tumble is a marble run puzzle game that’s Turing complete, i.e. in the abstract sense, it can compute anything a computer could. It implements bit flippers, logic gates, and memory using falling marbles and levers. Completely mechanical and very tactile.

For textual programming, check out Hedy, a language designed for the classroom. It stands out vs others like Scratch or Snap because Hedy is gradual. A presentation by its creator

If “natural immunity” is playing a sport and winning against an opponent (pathogens), then vaccination is practicing beforehand.

And this is not a game you want to lose.

Here: https://fsharpforfunandprofit.com/rop/

A very practical and tangible walkthrough

Yeah, that explanation is missing the critical point of generically applying external functions through flat_map/bind

I think this is a good explanation: https://fsharpforfunandprofit.com/rop/

In the short term, I would:

isVibrating = waveformParameters != null // may have just started
if (isVibrating) {
    waveformParameters.Shape = WaveformShape.Square;
    widget.UpdateWaveformParameters(waveformParameters);
}

In the longer term, unless there’s a good reason not to, I’d nudge the implementation towards having the code read more like:

widget.update(waveformParameters);

South Park made a good satire of exactly this, where Cartman immediately realized it meant he could continue being offensive and “safe space” away anything he didn’t want to acknowledge

In practical terms, “monad” means “chainable”.

Turns out that there’s no statute of limitations for terrorism, even if nobody was injured.

But then there will be funny/fuzzy cases then, whether something is considered political (and thus “terrorism”) or not

Classier than listing every program individually?

I mean… Isn’t that?

It’s “~~beat~ [guess] the hash [with distributed gamified brute force]”

Re: “wrongness” and “accepting yourself”, how much do you think it has to do with how society/others regard the identity you present? I.e. how much do you think the path you’ve taken is an internal development vs a response to society?

In order to describe what I’m thinking: Today, you’ve found a place/role within society where you’re more comfortable than the places/roles you’ve taken in the past. However, a completely different culture/society would have had different available “options”.

Sorry if I’m being way too abstract/hypothetical. Even as a “more conventional normal person”, I’ve long wondered how different I might be had I grown up in a completely different society.

Either 1:0 or 0:1, depending on my mood

This is when the argument can be reduced to absurdity, e.g. banning the Bible for the sexual imagery in it. Ban absolutely anything and everything even remotely objectionable to anyone (there are people with feet fetishes, ban all feet, and thus also all shoes), so there’s no Internet at all.

True, but there are projections designed to compromise multiple factors, whereas Mercator Al has a specialized use case, so it’s easy to agree that it’s a poor layman/general projection

I’ve read that Brita elite filters do capture some PFAs. However, it is well known that Brita filters and the like aren’t as efficient and effective as more dedicated solutions.

That is to say, no, they’re not bullshit – they’re better than nothing, but they’re just a marginal improvement. From my limited research so far I think it’s correct to say that you’re paying Brita more for a convenient system than for efficient and high quality filtration.

If you worked a shitty job that only earned $1 a day after accounting for work-related expenses (e.g. transportation, professional equipment, taxes, etc), it would be profitable, but not worth your time.

Is it not an apt analogue to describe the behavior, though? After all, one well known failure mode of LLMs has been formally dubbed “hallucination”.

And there are inflection points where it’s going it be easier to cut out the middlemen.

Efficiency of living is not static, I wouldn’t be surprised if it were possible to sustainably support 10B people with a relatively high standard of living.

I heard the following metric recently:

But in China, in 2013, China had terrible particulate air pollution. It was known around the world as the airpocalypse (ph) on a - a 700 on a scale of air pollution from zero to 500, the U.S. embassy reported. And, you know, over the decade after 2013, the size of the Chinese population grew by 50 million people. And so if more people were always worse for the environment, you might think that particle air pollution in China would have gotten worse. But, in fact, particle air pollution in China fell by half, even while the population grew.

Efficiency of living is only starting to come into the public consciousness, and we’re barely rewarding the exploration of that space. I think we’ll find there are a ton of improvements to be had.

That said, it’s a “after we survive the crisis” outlook. It seems hardship from climate change is already inevitable, especially in this upcoming century.