xigoi @ xigoi @lemmy.sdf.org

Posts

5

Comments

837

Joined

2 yr. ago

This sample also shows why the median is often more representative than the mean.

It’s clearly a conspiracy by Big Scale to sell more scales.

It’s called “redundant acronym syndrome”, or “RAS syndrome” for short.

The only mention of capitalism in the article is specifically venture capitalism.

Each person sent costs a fuckton of fuel. Do you think they’d waste it on someone who will not contribute to expanding the population?

We may technically have enough food for everyone, but we don’t have teleporters.

You can also get the former by killing wither skeletons, making it a renewable resource.

If Discord is simple, why does the Discord app have 149 MB?

If Discord suspects that you’re using a temporary e-mail, they will demand your phone number.

LaTeX produces PDFs, which are hard to read on small devices. Just write a website.

I think “uniform function call syntax” is the established term for this particular feature.

That’s true, but if the transformations have more than one argument, they go after the name:

    
data.split(",").join(";")

  

as opposed to concatenative programming languages, where all arguments go before the name and there’s no visual indication of the structure:

    
data "," split ";" join

  

Also, there are more languages with this feature, for example D, VimScript or Koka.

I have no idea what you’re trying to say.

Re the sidebar: How are Nim and Roc partially concatenative?

Who is the judge of these blocklists?

The Ministry of Truth, of course.

Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say.

—Edward Snowden

The vast majority of open-source projects are still hosted on GitHub, so yes, it’s an unpopular opinion.

Programming languages. (Not programming in general, but specifically language design.)

I’d just like to interject for a moment…

Then there is every second a nonzero chance that this machine (assuming true and not pseudo randomness) will pick, say pi.

No. The probability of picking any particular number from a uniform distribution is 0.

On the contrary, since the works of Shakespeare are a finite string over a finite alphabet (I can formalize this argument if you want), the probability of typing them out after some fixed large number of keystrokes is some nonzero number 𝑝. With 𝑛 monkeys, the probability that at least one will type out the works is 1 − (1 − 𝑝)ⁿ, which goes to 1 as 𝑛 → ∞.

Now, you are right that this does not mean that the works are guaranteed to be typed out. However, it has probability 1, so it’s mathematically “almost certain”.