mejutoco
RAG or other tool calling, like you suggest, the points in OP are addressed.
You did. Quote "It may annoy you,". But nevermind.
> You're entitled to believe that some grammatical forms are "wrong" and I'm entitled to have no respect for that opinion.
I think you also believe this, we only disagree in which grammatical forms. Or are you arguing that "Why waste time say lot word when few word do trick?" is grammatically correct?
If you are, then it is consistent with your popular-makes-correct approach as long as people say it. Whatever mistake stops being a mistake if repeated by enough people; if not, then we agree and only disagree on where the line is.
No bad feelings anyway. Nice chat.
You always have authorities like dictionaries and English usage references. There are some supporting each side of this debate in the link above.
> if a substantial body of people use English in a way that you dislike then it's just tough shit I'm afraid
There is no need for that language. hn is supposed to be a place of civil (and playful) discussion. I also already anticipated that take in my post.
> If instead we prefer to attribute it to class and say using the correct or wrong way is a class signifier and that both are correct, and that language depends on usage and there are no grammar rules really but only consensus, we can also do that
> You don't speak Elizabethan English, or Regency English, or late Saxon, or Old English, but you presumably don't think those are "wrong"
Because nobody actually talks like that, that's why. Joking. You introduced the time dimension, which complicates the comparison. If somebody claimed those are all correct ways of speaking in modern English, and only class signifiers, in that context, I would say they are wrong.
In general I dislike this nihilist "truth does not exist" nobody-is-wrong take. That is why I prefer the simple rule with countable and uncountable without the class excuse. Ultimately both takes are valid, but I find the second one too nihilist for my taste.
If people one day start saying "me thinks this good" you might find yourself changing sides arguing that truth does, in fact, exist.
In languages with an expressive typesystem you see a lot more single letter variables.
> We're not doing equations here, we're doing engineering
This sentence is nonsense.
> Conciseness is not a virtue in programming. Clarity is
I see what you are saying, but conciseness is also related to clarity, as I showed with the theorem.
Alternative explanation: native speakers are wrong sometimes.
It really boils down to:
- Less + uncountable noun (money, energy, code, sand)
- fewer + countable noun (trees, cars, grains, volts, coins)
If instead we prefer to attribute it to class and say using the correct or wrong way is a class signifier and that both are correct, and that language depends on usage and there are no grammar rules really but only consensus, we can also do that. But then "Why waste time say lot word when few word do trick?".
I prefer the first explanation.
P.S. Same with "if I were" turning into "if I was". I guess usage turned that one, and that is fine too. I make that mistake often.
In Spanish these guys (https://www.rae.es/duda-linguistica/el-nombre-de-la-y-es-i-g...) also officially changed the name of "y" (i griega) to "ye". The argument: it is easier for new speakers. I will say "i griega" forever I am afraid.
This is an implementation choice you did when implementing your programming language, if I understand correctly.
I thought of it because writing some lean lang I also had the option of adding Mathlib or keep it "bare".
> Should equations in math also use full words and comments?
My "also" referred not to have multiple representations but to also in math have prose instead of equations. I could have expressed it better. I did not think of that interpretation.
As for math, I really do not think that is true. Look at how this beautiful proof is so long in prose.
https://mathcs.clarku.edu/~djoyce/java/elements/bookI/propI4...
Is that better than a^2+b^2 = c^2 ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_theorem
Notation helps to be concise. Imagine more complicated things without notation in maths. Of course if you look at Principia Matematica we see the limits of notation as well.
Ultimately it is a dsl. Should equations in math also use full words and comments?
No, they should not. Maybe a nice syntax for grammars like raku is a better approach.
You need to normalize that with world population, or a bigger population and a smaller percentage could be the same number of people.
Of course it is still a bit simple, because the distribution will not be uniform per country.
Then we need to know why 150 and see how other numbers look like, ideally per region. My guess is industrial revolution but it is mixed with different timings and political events in different places.
Regarding
> What relationship skills are you building while talking to your chatbot all day?
Obviously talking to the client, or does your llm power itself on and starts working without any input from you?
This is too simplistic. Someone might ask that for a million reasons. Also, you will be judged not only by your answer. Being so direct might show you are not on autopilot in the conversation, your humour or that you only care about money, depending on a lot of other factors. It might make one more memorable as well. I personally would read it as light humour, unless it is accompanied by a dead eyes stare.
> the text I quoted says Ukraine mirrored some of its critical data abroad, something russia decided against
My only point was op was confusing Ukraine hosting abroad with hosting in the USA, and wrongly concluding this affects EU hosting in the USA from this. To this you contribute that Ukraine decided to host abroad and Russia did not.
So what? That is not bringing any new facts or argument to the conversation. But the bluesky account is interesting nonetheless.
> this makes the question of whether Europe should move content off of US infrastructure a lot more complicated.
Which was equating outside of Ukraine with USA, which is a logical error. Moving the goalposts does not invalidate the point. I have zero interest in discussing those probabilities (0 vs 0). The argument stands. This is hn
> Given the geopolitical concerns from both the east and the west, this makes the question of whether Europe should move content off of US infrastructure a lot more complicated.
The argument is Europe can decide to move servers out of USA and Ukraine is fine because Ukraine does not need servers in USA. They need servers in other countries. That was the logic issue with OP.
Your post is completely unrelated to mine or the above. Maybe wrong thread
From your wikipedia link
> The name is a portmanteau of "twin sticks