all-fakes

Yeah, that's the obvious counterexample, but that's why I said "more often than not". The statement I was questioning was that fast-math is "normally not more correct."

I thought fast-math meant (among other things) that the compiler could algebraically simplify things using some rules for real numbers that don't apply to 32-/64-bit floating point numbers. I'd expect that reducing the number of operations would more often than not reduce the error due to rounding, which is what most people would want when they talk about "correctness".

Which step in this (very naive) argument is wrong?

> In the same way your stance on climate change is a scientific position regardless if your stance is correct or not.

Can you please just give the definition of "scientific position" that you are using?

Do you mean an assertion regarding reality? Because I think everyone agrees on the reality. The question of what the words "sex" and "gender" constitute is not a question of reality: it is a question of social and legal constructs.

> It's still an evil to unjustly attack someone even if to different degrees.

Yep.

Look, I agree. I shouldn't be forced to do something for someone who makes me uncomfortable, even if it's something that they can't change, and which doesn't materially impact me in any way.

But at the same time, do you not see how this reinforces existing disparities in opportunity and social acceptance? If you have a better solution than mandating that businesses don't discriminate, I'm all ears. However, if you simply allow businesses to freely discriminate, then the world will only become more unfair over time.

> It's a scientific and political position.

What exactly do you mean by "scientific position"? The term seems, to me, an absurdity.

> Doesn't make it okay.

Putting aside any actual wrongdoing, attacking those with privilege is infinitely better than attacking those without: the former have the resources to defend themselves; the latter do not.

Sorry, can you explain why the velocities should add that way? I've always just seen velocities add like regular old vectors, so this looks very strange.

That is easily avoided by having them sign off on the code they commit to the employer's repository. Giving the employer full rights over every single thing the employee creates just to solve such a simple problem is ridiculous.

> And yet intuitively the function is increasing and so we ought to define "having a derivative" in such a way that shows that it is increasing.

The Cantor function is not differentiable at the points of "increase", so there is no problem with it growing at those points. I'm not sure what your complaint is.

> it seems like a bunch of silly definitions with silly consequences, with little relation to the actual mathematics of our universe that I care about.

That's honestly really silly. A lot of analysis is extremely practical, and is fundamental to the study of this universe. Yes, the language allows you to express non-physical situations, but you know you can just ignore those situations, right?

Yes. Some libraries, like typed-arena (and Rust's built-in Vec), will traverse the structure and call the drop implementations, and others, like bumpalo, will just leak the resources.

I'm not sure what the performance overhead would be, but that state can easily be stored on disk.

If we're being pedantic,

> Some bundlers may even have O(n^2) complexity: as your project grows, your dev environment gets exponentially slower

that's clearly not exponential!

What views are you insinuating that I have on "election interference using social media in 2016"?

How do you know that they aren't just as critical of their own government?