oslac

Is there still no type theoretic answer to unit testing? Does not the type or the class generally contain all the necessary information to unit test itself, assuming its a unit? That is, we should not have to even write these "theoretically". Just hit "compiler --unit_test <type>"

Any number that cannot be effectively computed does not exist; there are actual hard physical limits to Numbers.

They don't let you know this, but you can just delete your "I read this later" backlog. You're not going to finish it, or read any of it.

I tried a few, but (nearly) default Obsidian won me over by simplicity, ease-of-use.

It's also bad because you have to, as a programmer, actually type out the types a lot (compared to say, Ocaml, Haskell or Rust), and like you say, it makes it impossible to read.

Prerequisites are mostly fake. You can just study what you need - depth first learning (assuming you are open to self-studying and this is not about academic bureaucracy)

This isn't a new phenomena, and does not differ at all from a normal non-tech person getting their information from Google Search. Hidden motivations for this push left as an exercise for the astute reader.

Mock has expectations about how the function is called. If you read a file from a disk, and you expect it only to be done once, a mock is "usable" in this scenario to count the number of invocations. Note that there aren't outside, observable, state changes or behavior involved in this. It is about the non-functional introspection.

Fake is just a simple implementation, like in-memory db to stand-in for a real one. In the optimal case, provided by library authors.

Coffee Nap is probably amongst the top 3 refreshing things I know of.

For public discussion, places like Zulip, Slack and Discord are fucking abysmal since they can hardly be googled and usually have stronger circle jerking in them.

Only instability introduced so far was by the subs going private. For some communities that are already notoriously unstable, this is not a particularly good look and makes me reconsider things.

This is the actual, realizable AI risk: combining several badly understood complex systems that shape populations and lives.

Not the Skynet.

Build / buy an old enough computer.

This is a good intuition, Rust's references can be thought of as a r/w locks.