well1912

You and GP are probably referring to the same thing. Hikers sometimes use permethrin is on clothing, not on their bodies. No clue if what you linked would be appropriate on clothes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permethrin#Insect_repellent

Permethrin applications last multiple washings; this is also why its use can be problematic environmentally, it sticks around a long time and can hurt aquatic life. I stick to DEET on my hikes, on account of it being less damaging environmentally, but I also don't live in an especially bad area for ticks.

If you consider water to be included in the four colors, then connecting the upper and lower peninsulas through the water does nothing but move the problem between the Michigan segments to be a problem between the water segments.

If you connect Michigan between the water and the land, then you'll have to account for the fact that the water on one side and land on the other can be colored the same during the connection but _can't_ after the connection is erased.

Anecdote from this morning: I was taking notes on a technical book in a field I have only a little experience with, and came across a lot of words that I wanted the definition of. At first I opened wiktionary in my browser, but then I thought it'd be nice to have everything in Emacs, after which I used `M-x eww`, `!wikt <term>`. Then on a whim I tried `M-x dictionary`, and lo and behold Emacs has a built in dictionary, which you can even install new dictionaries in and search across. The default dictionary wasn't perfect, with a few terms not existing, but it's hard to beat the convenience for the 95% case. As a bonus, it defaults to searching the word under your cursor.

The point here is less "hey, Emacs has a dictionary!" (I'm sure many/most editors do!), more "hey, Emacs has a lot of use cases built in and they're easily discoverable." It's a great platform with a lot of care put into it over the years by different people, and if you come to it with the perspective of "it's just an editor" you'll be missing out.

At my current company, we've had many teams over the years fail to make business logic in model methods work, and I think many other people have had similar results. The issues usually boil down to some combination of "business logic is too coupled to the data model" and "this method lives at an intersection of these two models and creates weird dependency problems". I now feel that Django puts you down a path for failure by naming the DB layer "models" and not giving users a decent place to put cross-model domain logic.

My current preference is a functional core-imperative shell-style architecture where as much code lives in the functional core as possible. It's not very elegant with Django but it works fine. Cosmic Python (really accessible and fairly quick read if you have the time: https://www.cosmicpython.com/book/preface.html) has examples that are similar.

Typeclassopedia is a classic for getting a rock solid understanding of the "hard concepts" in ordinary (and beyond) Haskell. https://wiki.haskell.org/Typeclassopedia

"Digging deeper into why this worked this way was interesting, but it's bed time, so I'm going to cut the scroll here." I can very roughly intuit why this is-- the difference between the two Applicative instances the author noticed was that the shape of the first tree was being fitted into the second tree vs the shape of the second into the first. So if you "bind" the lefthand side of <* > first, its shape will be "fitted" to the righthand side, and if you do the opposite you get the second "fitted" to the first shape.

I believe it's the same as iterating over the righthand side of <* > in its implementation first instead of the lefthand side like in their first, wrong implementation?

But my reasoning feels loose here. I probably just need to look at their implementation of Monad Tree closer. :-)

Nearly jumped out of my seat when I saw this! Look at how similar our approaches are: http://welliam.github.io/molts/ (apologies for how poorly written it is, it's been a few years!)

Not that it's a super novel concept, but we both used this for the modes of limited transposition. For me it was an efficient way of generating MOLTs for any equal temperament scale.