slunk

> That's the main reason why CSV absolutely sucks too [...]

Is it? I think you're absolutely right that naive points of view like the one you're responding to will lead to avoidable bugs, but I'm not so sure the problem is CSV so much as people who assume CSV is simple enough to parse or generate without using a library.

> It has nothing to do with what the model is being used for.

I may be misunderstanding this passage of the article, but I thought the author was claiming that machine learning (specifically training) was equivalent to compression, while language understanding is equivalent to decompression. Therefore, they can't be the same thing. Why does language understand have to be analogous to training an ML model rather than using an ML model for inference?

I was hoping there would be discussion of this point higher up in the thread, because I had essentially the same reaction as you while reading this passage. I'm no expert of machine learning, NLP, or linguistics, but this struck me as a pretty obvious flaw in the author's argument.

I was also struggling to convey this point. I think you've hit the nail on the head.

You've gotten a couple responses making arguments that the atoms required for a language like lisp are fundamentally simpler than eval in Perl and that makes the difference... Fwiw, I don't find these arguments very compelling. It's not so much that they're entirely false, but the "most beautiful program ever written [sic]" that we're talking about here is "beautiful" precisely because it elides all these "simple" details. I do get the vague sense that it is essentially a more verbose `eval $1`.

It's one thing if you have a source of revenue so justify your S3 costs. My interpretation of the parent commentator's concern is that this person has opened up a multi gigabyte S3 file publicly and sent lots of traffic its way (via hacker news) for what appears to be a passion project.

I don't think using an IDE to catch lots of stupid simple mistakes is bad. It's how I prefer to work.

> It looks really strange to me to observe other developers constantly compiling and running their code just to see if it works. It kinda looks as if they did not exactly understand what they are doing because if they did, they would be confident the implementation works.

Explain to me how this statement doesn't apply to your use of an IDE, but the other engineers you've observed don't understand what they're doing.

> So in a sense I am not strictly practicing my approach

Developing in an IDE that compiles almost continuously is about as far from the development philosophy you're advocating for here as one could get :P

Ah, my mistake. Thanks for the correction.

One can't help but wonder what kind of a person would tweet their "apology" for unintentionally defacing the entirety of Scots Wikipedia in more broken Scots. Seems... Insensitive, no?

Thanks for clarifying that for me!

Yup, fair enough.

Without knowing enough about Rust to speak authoritatively... u8 can represent larger integers than i8 (no sign bit). Surely it's not completely safe.