pxeger1

"parliamentlive.tv" doesn't sound any more reputable, but apparently it's official despite the foreign TLD!

In semantics, types are properties of values and expressions. Type safety is about whether the type of an expression always matches the type of the value it evaluates to.

This post is about data structures, which are values, but like variables, they also contain values. Therefore they can be mutable. You can argue that a mutable data structure is an object not a value, I suppose. But it can go in the same place as a value, so it makes sense to talk about subtyping.

One possible argument in favour of what happened here:

If you wanted to implement a package manager in the build system and keep it in the compiler, what abstraction for it would you provide between the compiler and the build system? This probably affects how you design the import system, and some other fundamental parts of your language. Those are important to get right, and probably hard you change. If you start by tightly coupling the package management and the compiler, it could be easier to design that by starting with the programmer experience you want and working backwards. Then you can change the implementation later, affecting fewer users.

I'm thinking specifically of Python here, where the import system is crazily complicated and warty, partly to accommodate all the varied ways package management was done. This compares to Go where there is a comparatively neat and small syntax for imports and the like, because they were designed with package management in mind from the start. (Not that I agree with all its design decisions.)

How many people have died because the people who could've saved them didn't think it was possible to save them?

How are they going to enforce this?

This rests on a lot of assumptions that the published figures for "planned" datacentres, "committed" AI spend, etc. are irreversible. I suspect that at least some of it is possible to back out of.

You're talking about Gödel encoding, not Godel's incompleteness theorem.

The bureaucracy isn't trying to be utilitarian, it's trying to be democratic, and the people don't want utilitarianism. No politician wants to be the one who removed the red tape that would've stopped the reckless professor from poisoning all those children with his botched clinical trial.

I've had a Discord account for 10 years. They seem to assume all discord users are at least teenagers, so surely they can't think I was 8 when I created the account. So can't I have the "full" experience automatically?

Is it at all realistic to expect the stable and/or fiscally conservative countries to accept the high bond yields imposed by the more fiscally loose or perceived-risky countries? Could this ever happen without the EU centralising more control over fiscal policy?

> this capability was leaked

I think the policy Harris is referring to is based on the _risk_ of something like this - it is easy to imagine wireless devices being vulnerable and enabling this capability - rather than being based on definitive existence of this capability.

Profile of llm generated comments

I don't understand