tomsmeding

If it's in AGENTS.md, it's not a statement for a human, but for the LLM. Who knows, maybe they have seen, or think to have seen and now cargo-cult, some behaviour improvement due to the sentence.

I read the "weirdly" as "unexpectedly", i.e. "you might not see this coming, but it's still true (and there's deep theory behind it)".

In ML family languages you also don't have to change the language for this, as function application is naturally "argument-by-argument" (the term is "curried"): the syntax is normally f x y z but (f x y) z and (((f)) (x)) y z are just as valid, and indeed f x y will be a function taking one argument. Thus |> can just take a function of one argument and be done.

That インウ should likely be インク. :)

Dialogue is super effective for this, but it's also a skill: you're suddenly a teacher. You should have no judgement of the other not knowing something, and be able to effectively build up that delta in a way that is understandable and interesting to the other. This can be more difficult than it sounds, but it's also rewarding.

I've been doing some benchmarking recently and I've observed that on certain workloads, my CPU cores are not equivalent. (And this is an Intel CPU from 5 years ago, all cores are the same on paper.) In a particular very bad case I have a reproducible 50% performance difference between (physical) core 0 and core 5.

You might want to taskset to particular cores too, especially if you are looking at computational code with many almost-but-not-quite-random memory accesses.

This is hilarious as someone who hasn't used the gmail composition interface in years. I left it to use my own domain, but it seems like I get to enjoy this mess with popcorn too instead of tears.

Possibly, but at least a cursory internet search of the person's name doesn't being up this article. Which is a good thing.

Similar experience to sibling: a disinterested human isn't going to ask for 30 different detailed things to add to, or change in, the paper that could technically be improved but aren't worth the additional page real estate. An LLM reviewer definitely does this.

I can't help but read VSMOW as Very Standard Mean Ocean Water.

It ought not to, indeed. However, if you want "save my file" to include awareness of other developers concurrently working on the same project -- even the same file -- with a decent way to handle conflicts, it suddenly becomes complicated. Git is probably not the optimal way of designing a UI around this, but it's not like this is an easy problem.

scḧon

Egraphs fundamentally require a first-order language, i.e. no lambda functions, because they do not handle scoping well. There are workarounds that work in some circumstances, but no general solution (that I'm aware of).

Additionally, egraphs express rewrites on a single language. Compilers are fundamentally translators between different languages; how do you write typechecking as an egraph rewrite rule? Or conversion to assembly?

The method proposed is just A - B mod n. The two are entirely equivalent.