dpratt71

Believe it or not, it gets worse. The authors of this paper are the same folks who came up with this particular dating technique. And I can't find any evidence the technique has been independently validated. Not that that should count for much from this layman.

I don't think you can "debunk" something merely with strong evidence.

Besides that, I wasn't aware of this codex, so I'm glad you shared it. Has anyone suggested that (assuming there is a relationship) the arrow of causality might go the other way? That perhaps this image was a reference for the shroud itself?

If you have a goal of being able to confidently reason about your code, such as to be confident it won't go "wrong", then making it more math like would seem to make a lot of sense.

As far as the IO thing is concerned, one could use pure functions to construct a model of an imperative program. Then you just need something to run it... There is a sense in which this is exactly what is done in practice.

The word "suspected" does not appear on the report you linked. Rather it says it is a "possible" carcinogenic. Moreover

> The committee therefore reaffirmed that it is safe for a person to consume within this limit per day. For example, with a can of diet soft drink containing 200 or 300 mg of aspartame, an adult weighing 70kg would need to consume more than 9–14 cans per day to exceed the acceptable daily intake, assuming no other intake from other food sources.

It sounds like we'd be better off not knowing about this law. Thanks.

Turkeys can fly, though. Just not the domestic ones :)

Rust is more restrictive than it needs to be, in this case. What matters is whether it's possible to have a situation where the value of a variable or parameter is not concordant with its type in a given context and what it takes to make that happen.

Of course it's possible to tell the TS type checker to sod off in a given context (cast, use the "any" type, etc.), but without doing that, I think it's hard to contrive a situation such as I described above.

https://www.typescriptlang.org/play?#code/C4TwDgpgBAsiAq5oF4...

In your example, '3 | "foo" | false' is the type of the variable. What is the argument for this being a bad idea in general? You imply it's unsafe. How?

Comment · 4 years ago

Stupid question: Why isn't such logic incorporated into the call itself?

Comment · 4 years ago

Some ideas that I suspect are true do indeed scare me. But I'm more scared of ideas that I strongly suspect are false, but I think other people may not agree.

Fyi, "Alcohol distributes into water spaces, not fat" https://sites.duke.edu/apep/module-1-gender-matters/content/...

Whether it's a single company (or product) or multiple is beside the point. If a technology is only available to (say) 1% of the population, I don't think that qualifies as being widely available.

I will also note that my original comment was in response to someone who is "more interested in tech for the other 95%".

Penicillin, maybe? But I wonder how quickly it became readily available outside of the Western world.

And I see that Nintendo has apparently sold an extremely impressive number of consoles (https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2019/11/nintendo_has_now_s...). But even if everyone only bought one console each, that's only about 10% of world population.

This may be a little unfair, but I do wonder if there isn't a tendency to consider a technology to be widely available when it becomes available to you and the folks farther back in the line don't count or aren't relevant.

Is it not the case that having access to a machine capable of running either Minecraft or Linux in the early days of each (if not now) means you are (or were) fairly affluent?