arter

I can't help it but I do not trust many of the told events here. Some of the events have as much twists and turns as a childish cartoon show. I can understand people killing for revenge but someone finding reason for revenge because a toddler took a piece of meat to eat and that led to a dead dog just seems so insane to me. Insane because these same people are capable of hunting, socializing and crafting stuff which definetely require intelligence. Yet the leaps of logic and reason they make to put the blame on someone to exact revenge on are enormous. Maybe it is all true but I cannot comprehend it.

Having a language that generates proper errors, does not try to hold your hand incorrectly and instead tells you you are wrong is always better.

Haskell is one of the best in the world in this. But it also happens to be incredibly complex and also weird in it's syntax, to the point it does make code fringe and unreadable.

There is a real difference here - a language that can help you fact check your logic and reason that you are accessing a potentially null value in this context can be better if it's drawbacks don't outweight it.

Elixir isn't static so it doesn't do this but it does blow up a lot compared to other dynamic languages. It's abstraction of proccesses and threads and what not, does actually make your code more portable and more modifyable. It offers a specific paradigm for programming that works great for multiple proccesses and the whole language is built around it. So if you are going to be using that paradigm anyway it would be a better choice.

It's also just pretty how it fits together.

Just because it hasn't taken over the world it doesn't mean it's proponents adorations are baseless ?

I agree that the article falls flat on providing descriptive reasons how Elixir compliments machine learning. But that shouldn't be an argument against the product, but rather against it's cult following that does not provide sufficiently detailed and advanced examples and explanations. Something extremely common in tech journalism.

Good ideas and technologies do get underappreciated and wide spread adoption I would wager is not at all correlated to quality. Javascript, c++, java and others are good examples. Yes they have taken over the world at one point, but there are better designed languages out there. It just seems that people don't want to relearn a new paradigm and you can write software on anything.

Yep.

You wouldnt use json path as replacement to any language. It might be marginally useful in configurations or passing queries between different services. But the complex syntax limits it in both cases, because you cannot easily automatically modify the query. In the case of configs it would be great to analyze hundreds of configs on different systems and change them automaticaly, same with queries exchanged between services which might even get stored in a database.

I do not understand why domain languages aren't designed with limited syntax in mind. In the style of lisp for instance. Because actually being able to programatically work with the language is a massive advantage that imo far outweights your own frustration with typing a paranthesis or two extra.

Weird for me the phrasing "presents a fundamentally different issue" is so hackernews-like. "Can be equated with theft" also. I feel like I have seen them a thousand times on here from regular old people.

Maybe that part did not get rephrased.

Could you elaborate or share some articles on why QFT is a counterexample to western reductionism ? In laymans terms that is.

A question that came to me as I was reading the article was - what makes us think that all protons are the same ? Can it be that instead of every proton having a superposition of 3 quarks, or 5 quarks or more, we have some protons with 3 and others with 5 ? How did they verify that this is not a case ? I am assuming they never managed to isolate 1 proton and test it twice.

I have never in my life felt that countries matter. That a person might be better off in one country than another. As such I cannot understand the feelings in this article even though I am Bulgarian and know the events by heart.

My parents spent 15 years of their life in Spain and hated every second of it. They hated it so much because I wasn't there with them. And they had a horrinle opinion of the culture and daily life there. While in opposite my 2 uncles that went with them and took their own kids with them, like it there and have never went back.

I with half the life span of my parents believe that personal issues and events completely eclipse any effect the political and cultural environment has. For me political and/or cultural events were just a new conversation topic in my social circles. Something to be part of because well everyone is part of it.

All my life I've been told that there is opportunity abroad, there is opportunity in the capital, in X large city. But opportunity isn't somewhere it just arises sometimes. I know for sure that opportunity doesn't come while sitting in one place you don't like.

But what I am trying to say is that: cities and countries aren't really colored in a specific way. They aren't dull, closed, eventful and such, they just are places. They have as much effect on an individual as does a single individual on them. Even so undoubtedly some places have a personal color to us - my parents will never again try to work in Spain and it would not end well if they did. I myself will never go back to the town of my high school, but others like it there.

Not always but we can reproduce your findings in the future - credit to gravitational lensing causing some light paths to years longer to reach us.

For my taste Yt music has almost everything, but spotify hardly has half my playlist.

I've found most of the music I listen to through youtube. So it's not suprising.

But I'd wager that almost every song on spotify is uploaded to youtube as a video. Then it should be available on yt music unless they have flagged massive amounts of videos as not musical.

I believe the author addresses the core issue of why we have a fear of being wrong in the first paragraph. Toxic work environment or the belief that the work environment is toxic. Work is only an edge case here too, we are afraid to be wrong in all environments. (I say "we", but of course some are more afraid than others.)

And I believe that showing a scared person the merits of not being scared and experimenting might motivate them temporarily and most likely get them to agree... but it will not stick. Because fear is a very powerful impulse that has roots that can go very deep and wont't just stand up and move to a little more nutricous soil. People have very, very good reasons to feel fear that are rooted in their past and they are most often irrefutable. What is refutable is that these reasons no longer exist or that one might now have other skills to deal with them.

Sadly this is an individual issue and the method for fixing it is case by case.

Similarly - this works the same way for confidence. Knowing that the benefits of being confident outweight the cons will not make you confident.

They can provide motivation though.

Source - only my personal experiences. Fear leaves me only if I feel safe or if I expend a great deal of effort to supress it temporarily. The latter of which is courage and willpower and both are not infinite.