the_benno

The best source is usually authors' websites. You can find a free copy of just about any modern CS paper by googling its title in quotes with "filetype:pdf".

None of them -- Isabelle is developed at University of Cambridge and TU Munich by academics. The parent commenter seems to have some mistaken notions and assumptions about formal methods and PL research.

You can argue that it's growing and/or promising, but there is absolutely no way that the actual research funding coming out of blockchain-land can hold a candle to the big formal methods labs at major tech firms or traditional academic research funding.

Anders Moeller and Michael Schwartzbach's book [1] on static program analysis is a fantastic resource, with (I think) a great balance of theory and practice. If you want to get really deep into the theory of program analysis, Patrick Cousot just published an incredibly thorough book on abstract interpretation (just got my copy this week, so haven't fully explored enough to have much of an opinion on it as a pedagogical resource)

[1] cs.au.dk/~amoeller/spa

No, I wouldn't say that category theory is a prerequisite for domain theory in general.

I'm most familiar with domain theory from Winskel's "Formal Semantics of Programming Languages" (great book, cited as Win93 in the linked PDF), which has a whole chapter on the subject with no reference to category theory.

If you get deeper into domain theory (e.g. by working through this book) surely some category theory will be useful, but it's not a foundational prereq.

My "wisdom" is that microeconomics is complicated... Hardly a controversial statement. I was being serious about a microecon text, but wikipedia would work just fine too.

I'm not on here to argue with people and it seems you have some sort of ideological bone to pick, so this is going to be my last reply. All the best

Sure: literally everything past the first chapter of any microeconomics textbook. Come on, your position is "it just seems obvious", so I'll just say that it _is_ obvious that economics -- a social science full of interconnected and confounding factors -- is not so simple as "if everyone has 10 more dollars then everyone's cost of living goes up by exactly 10 dollars."

Your meaning was indeed clear but I find your reasoning flawed and the cargo-cult intellectualism... silly and pretentious.

The main flaw, to me, is the 1:1 correspondence you draw between the magnitude of UBI-style benefits and cost of living. That may be true (at least under some simplified/idealized econ101 assumptions) if UBI was the sole source of money in the economy, but that's obviously not the case. The crux of the "UBI doesn't cause spiraling inflation" argument is that UBI accounts for a sufficiently small fraction of total incomes that its benefit (greater spending power for lower incomes, and the downstream economic benefits of that spending) outweighs its nonzero but noncrippling inflationary effect.

That is, though the $10 cash benefit you describe may of course increase COL, it does so by some amount between $0 and $10 that is influenced by all sorts of factors you're glossing over.

What is this gobbledygook? These technical terms have meanings that you clearly either (a) do not understand or (b) are abusing to trick less-educated folks into thinking your political opinions are authoritative and intellectual or whatever.

To an audience that _does_ speak theoretical CS, your sprinkling in of its terminology weakens whatever point you're trying to make and comes off instead as silly and pretentious.

This is not how unions work. (source: am union member)

Your claims and arguments are against some imagined shitty union-like thing that does not much resemble an actual union.

because it's not a zero sum game? those union busting talking points keep you focused on your less-fortunate colleagues and and not the obscenely wealthy guy screwing the both of you over.

Oh, thanks for the correction and apologies for the inadvertent misinfo.

Your comment sent me reading the HOPL paper about SML -- I think I (based on folklore knowledge/informal conversations) conflate the original development of ML with subsequent development and standardization around SML. All of this was well before my time so it's quite interesting to read about some of the details.