Arguggi
Joined 13 years ago
Joined 13 years ago
I was inspired by posts like this one [1] to give the free monad a spin and after ~300 lines i'm almost done. But then I found other posts that talk about free and cofree [2] that I still can't really understand so I guess there still is some room for improvement.
[1] http://www.haskellforall.com/2012/06/you-could-have-invented... [2] http://dlaing.org/cofun/posts/free_and_cofree.html
Setting:
searchPredicate :: String -> String -> Bool
searchPredicate = \_ _ -> False
seems to make no difference.And the default is:
searchPredicate = isPrefixOf
Patching and recompiling with this patch[1] mentioned here[2] seems to fix the issue.[1]: https://code.google.com/p/xmonad/issues/attachmentText?id=39... [2]: https://code.google.com/p/xmonad/issues/detail?id=393
"Learn You a Haskell for Great Good!" has an example[0]:
routine =
case Just (0,0) of
Nothing -> Nothing
Just start -> case landLeft 2 start of
Nothing -> Nothing
Just first -> case landRight 2 first of
Nothing -> Nothing
Just second -> landLeft 1 second
becomes (using some 'do' syntactic sugar): routine = do
start <- return (0,0)
first <- landLeft 2
second <- landRight 2 first
landLeft 1 second
Checking for Nothing is taken care of 'automatically' and if any of start, first, second or (landLeft 1 second) are equal to Nothing routine is equal to Nothing too.[0] http://learnyouahaskell.com/a-fistful-of-monads#walk-the-lin...
New packages for the "core" repo, for example the Linux kernel, are first introduced to the "testing" repo, which isn't enabled by default. You would have to manually change your pacman.conf to use it.
From the wiki [2]:
"After a kernel in core broke many user systems, the "core signoff policy" was introduced. Since then, all package updates for core need to go through a testing repository first, and only after multiple signoffs from other developers are they allowed to move. Over time, it was noticed that various core packages had low usage, and user signoffs or even lack of bug reports became informally accepted as criteria to accept such packages."
[0]: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Pacman#Skip_package_fro... [1]: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Pacman#Partial_upgrades... [2]: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Official_repositories#H...
You build packages from source when you install something from the AUR[0] or you can build from the Arch Build System [1].
[0] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_User_Repository
"The SliM project has been abandoned (the project homepage is down, leaving a github mirror), and is not fully compatible to systemd, including logind sessions. Consider using a different Display manager or Xinitrc."
Lightdm [1] seems to be a better alternative.
[0] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/SLiM [1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/LightDM
Now I'm curious, so I guess I'm trying it for a month [1].
[0] https://arguggi.co.uk/blog/list.html [1] https://arguggi.co.uk/blog/Not-Updating/
I've only listed the last 2 problems now. As months go by the list will probably get longer and better reflect how much arch actually breaks (or doesn't)
And then suppose you encounter a woman who tells you that because of the insults she has received from guys in the skeptic community, she has decided that the skeptic movement is fundamentally sexist.
Receiving insults from men that identify as skeptics does not mean that the skeptic movement is fundamentally sexist.
Telling her she just committed a fallacy doesn't seem so wrong to me.
I can't understand if by subvocalization he means moving your throat/mouth or simply repeating the words you are reading in your mind without moving any muscles.
Wikipedia says "subvocalization is defined as the internal speech made when reading a word"[1], which further confuses me.
I don't move any muscles while reading, but my internal monologue repeats the words I read, does this mean i subvocalize?
Morozov doesn't worry about the correct application of data but, from what I understood reading the link, is more worried about this:
"Morozov fears a future in which such “intuitive knowledge” about how to deploy resources is overruled by algorithms that can work only with hard data and can’t, of course, account for the data they don’t have."
It could be argued that decisions based on "intuitive knowledge" without any data are as biased as the one's based on only data.
I don't think this is the solution Morozov is proposing. He's just saying that collecting and distributing more data will not necessarily be beneficial because data interpretation is subjective and data collection may be biased.
Github Profile: https://github.com/Arguggi