gignico

Wait, is there a StarCraft coming in 2030??

> Generalized Star-Height at Most Three

This was an open problem in automata theory I worked on for more than one year before giving up. I'm very curious about their claimed proof.

They are, but if the country has a law forbidding you from doing anything, things cannot move forward. If they'll not work, of course they won't be built. And large classic reactors are unlikely to be built either, even with this new law.

The idea is to go to new-generation SMRs, not revive decades-old plants, which is actually impossible.

> 06 - Somatic limb regeneration

At least those things cannot be solved by just burning GPT tokens.

This sounded to me like that old “would you steal a car?” anti-piracy campaign until I clicked to read the post :)

In the contrary it’s one of the best design decisions of the language. The rules for object safety are the same C++ applies to virtual functions. On the other hand you don’t have to choose a priori whether you’ll need dynamic or static polymorphism, you can choose at use site, and the size of the objects do not pay for dynamic dispatch because the vtable pointer is kept together with the object pointer, not within the object.

Indeed, thanks :)

Unbelievably I read this news while visiting Cork. Went to Kinsale yesterday. Never been to Ireland before. What a coincidence!

I thought the US government had just decided that the cause of autism was vaccines </sarcasm>

Yes, C++26 reflection is nice, but also extremely complex to understand and use well. The rest of C++26 is the usual series of too-little-too-late additions. Meanwhile I’m still waiting for pattern matching to become a thing (a proposal has been discussed for ages)

I understand the issue about the ever-moving target etc., but almost fifteen years later do you really believe C++98 is better than C++11 without move semantics and decent smart pointers? I remember working with Qt5 and C++98 and yes, it was productive, but it was also a mess of intricate object ownership.

I'm critical about some choices made with C++20 and after, like the mess that modules are, and the too-little-too-late ranges library. C++26 is also a joke imho. But on the other hand, working with std::optional and (in C++23) std::expected is so much better than without. The thing is nobody forces you to use every single feature of a new standard, but I would not recommend ignoring very good tools just for the sake of it.

What is a product? So you take two natural numbers `a` and `b`, and you want to sum `a` for `b` times, or vice versa. Then things become complicated if you want to do that quickly...

I was about to start arguing why I don't agree but then I thought it was better not to :P

Yes, but logic gates with constant fan-in, crucially, otherwise that's called AC.