david

joined 1 year ago
[–] david 3 points 1 year ago

True. But the word Monad has done more harm to the accessibility, popularity and reputation of pure functional programming than pretty much anything else.

Yeah, I could have said circle rather than curve of constant normal intersection points, but that word is very commonly understood, so it's not that same as unnecessarily calling something a Monad. Maybe it's the equivalent of calling it a 2-manifold instead of a wheel.

Perhaps just ditch the generalisation, then, and just call them Result or Maybe. After all, circle is a short word, but we just call them wheels.

[–] david 35 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Bold. I guess being left to die in am armed insurrection stings a little.

[–] david 145 points 1 year ago (24 children)

When you find out about Dunning-Kruger and realise that that's why everyone else in the world is so stupid apart from you.

[–] david 22 points 1 year ago

Pretty sure it's just the racists.

[–] david 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Don't call it a monad, call it a structured data type or something, that's what it is! Calling it a monad is like saying that you're using a curve of constant normal intersection point. Why not just say it's a wheel?

Yes, it's mathematically true that you're having a smooth ride precisely because the normals have a constant intersection point, but it's also true to say that it's a wheel and it goes round and isn't bumpy and doesn't scrape, and people can get a handle on that.

So yeah, use a Result or Option or Maybe structured data type because it keeps explicit track of whether there's a value or not, and yeah, you can change or combine them and preserve the tracking, but there's no point calling it a monad unless you're trying to make people believe that avoiding the $1bn mistake of allowing/using null requires category theory. It doesn't, it's just a structured data type. It's simpler than an array! Stop calling it a monad.

[–] david 9 points 1 year ago

The pedantic nerd in me wants to compare half of the building with the woman, or just the bit right next to the heart to the bit right next to the cabinet.

[–] david 2 points 1 year ago

I love this. Thank you!

[–] david 6 points 1 year ago

Summary:

538 guy posts that red states have worse mortality from covid than blue states because of lower vaccine uptake, having previously tested the claim for confounding factors.

MUH FREEDUM medic claims that he should have controlled for age because red states are older on average. 538 guy points out that that's barely true and that in the oldest four states, the red/blue mortality split is stark. He then shows his working for controlling for age and shows that the correlation is almost exactly as strong.

It turns out that, in a statistical fact that should surprise no one at all who isn't a conspiracy theorist, higher vaccination rates against covid are the biggest determiner for covid survival rates, and in a statistical fact that should surprise no one at all who kept up with the news, the republican party, and Donald Rump himself managed to persuade their gullible followers that covid was some sort of scam and the vaccine was dangerous.

My reaction was to wonder why the republicans would mislead their voters to their deaths in such numbers, but then I remembered that the republican party doesn't give a shit about its voters, it just wants to mislead them into voting republican. If it gave a shit about its voters it would have very different policies.

[–] david 1 points 1 year ago
[–] david 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

...

In his notes, Roszak wrote that Google's search advertising "is one of the world's greatest business models ever created" with economics that only certain "illicit businesses" selling "cigarettes or drugs" "could rival."

....

Beyond likening Google's search advertising business to illicit drug markets, Roszak's notes also said that because users got hooked on Google's search engine, Google was able to "mostly ignore the demand side" of "fundamental laws of economics" and "only focus on the supply side of advertisers, ad formats, and sales." This was likely the bit that actually interested the DOJ.

[–] david 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Elm (for frontend). https://elm-lang.org/

Nothing is as easy to refactor, maintain, add new features to, work with after a gap, nothing else is as crashless and rock solid.

No compiler is a fast, friendly, helpful and insightful. Seriously. You don't wait for the compiler. It's instant even on huge code bases. And the resulting output outperforms other major frameworks.

Its syntax is weird at first (even stranger than python) and the autoformatter is mad keen on blank lines but after a while it's just so clear and easy to follow.

You have to let go of your object oriented mindset and stop trying to turn everything into objects and components but everything I hated about maintaining old code evaporated once I did. I used to believe that objects detangled code, I don't know why I continued to believe that despite the evidence, because apart from pretty small and simple things, OO code gets extremely tangled. Elm is absurdly easy to refractor, so you just do.

It's genuinely nice to add new features to old code, something I've never experienced before in a few decades of programming.

The elm slack is also a very helpful place indeed and you usually get a lot of support pretty quickly.

Adding the link to their front page, I see they call it "A delightful language for reliable web applications" and the first claim is "no runtime exceptions". I remember thinking that was marketing BS but being intrigued by the bold claim. A few years later and I can honestly say that that accurately describes my experience.

These last few years I've rediscovered the joy of coding.

[–] david 28 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nah, Rump is a looser who hates admitting he lost even to himself. This will bug him for the rest of his life.

It's so annoying when you can't just pay people to shut up and agree with you or sack them if they don't!

view more: ‹ prev next ›