- lambdasOther way round, no? TidalCycles predates Sonic Pi by a number of years
- You can pick it up passively over time, and with your skills, if you were to actively engage then I suspect pick up the necessary very quickly, and the rest comes from experience.
I picked up Linux at 13, fortuitously just in time for the release of the Nokia 770 (later getting, and still owning the N900 too).
At that time, getting real dirty with the kernel, hardware, cross compiling etc was necessary, so 1) there were more resources 2) it was seen as mundane, busy work rather than mystical and difficult.
If I were to say how to learn the same things today, I’d probably say Gentoo is ideal - it’s insanely flexible in tinkering, has good resources on compiling the kernel and packages, and I’m a fan of crossdev for cross compiling.
Getting real dirty with hardware and electronics, the obvious answer would be one of the Raspberry Pi lineup, but if you’re very tenacious, patient and a touch unhinged, then I would actually say now’s the time to get in on RISC-V.
It’s still early days, so there’s lots of resources that have very thin abstractions between hardware <-> tooling <-> code. Devices are cheap and exciting. You’ll be on the same footing as most other people so you won’t feel like a dunce.
The cons are that a lot of RISC-V devices get shipped out with very little documentation (and sometimes only in Chinese), binary blobs making mainstream kernels difficult, and you’re learning at the same time, so you might feel you’re ice skating uphill.
Wrt to the bootloader and partition corruption; towards the twilight years of the life of the N900, when it became clear N900 had been abandoned and the N950 was still only available to select few, a bunch of smart people on the Maemo forums started reversing and writing open drivers (uboot bootloader, wifi, camera iirc), so they became pretty documented.
- > [..] as a design goal - to make programming fun. There was even for a while in the late 2000s the culture of _why and MINSWAN.
It was a great time - titles like Learn You A Haskell For Great Good and Land of Lisp really capture the zeitgeist.
- 90% manned. A lot of money and time goes into getting track access.
And collecting unmanned data is still such a pain. At the moment, you stick calibration gear to a train and hope it gets as much noise free data as it can. All whilst going at least 40mph over the area you want - you’re fighting vibrations, vehicle grease, too much sunlight, not enough sunlight, rain, ballast covering things, equipment not calibrated before going out etc etc.
- Tell him that, not me; I’m simply referring to what’s on the board, above her right hand, left of her stomach. Perhaps it’s abuse of notation.
- Yeah, that’s not right. I’m not sure about painstakingly… it said it couldn’t make out the notation, and spat out what it thought it could read, and you never checked it - nor read the articles for context, just assumed it was to do directly with further AI work.
It picked up on the polynomial, then what it thought was a scheme/sheaf being defined is actually the finite field with six elements. It also misread “Thue” as “the”.
If you had corrected what it read from the board, then gave it the context that he was a number theorist now working for a company trying to get AI to work through proofs, then you may have got the correct answer that this appears to be them crafting problems on polynomial reduction to test how the LLM reasons about proof.
- > They are expensive, but that is partly because rail workers are well paid
I must be an engineer for a different Network Rail
- Agreed. In addition to yours, notions like limits/colimits, equalisers/coequalisers, kernels/cokernels, epi/monic will be very hard to grasp a motivation for without a breadth of mathematical experience in other areas.
Like learning a language by strictly the grammar and having 0 vocabulary.
- Shivlov for the one and only text in linear algebra is rough. IMO, it’s a little terse and fast paced. Efficient if you’re already well versed enough to be dangerous, but otherwise I think might slow down the beginner to a crawl in places.
Same for Hartshorne’s Algebraic Geometry. Neither of these are bad textbooks at all, they both have a place on my bookshelf, but certainly better options have appeared through the years (for AG, I’d be remiss to mention Ravi Vakil’s fantastic The Rising Sea, due for a physical publishing October, and Ulrich Görtz & Torsten Wedhorn two part series)
- I hope I’m not adding 2 + 2 to get 5, but it’s incredibly convenient that a lot of people are being charged for supporting a proscribed group the same month as the online safety act is rolled out…
The cynic in me almost wonders if when it comes to re-election time, these increased numbers in terrorist charges will be trotted out and the context conveniently forgotten.
- I don’t think it’s dumb - hasty and premature perhaps. Manufacturers have been shipping boards with flaky RVV support, a years old kernel and undocumented blobs on in house baked OS and calling it a day.
Feels like a step towards strong arming them into shipping products that can be supported easier/not being left to rot in a drawer.
- The only time a labour majority voted against this bill was when an amendment to make category 1 sites have optional controls for users (something that would have prevented this).
I’m going to guess that our MP’s are tech illiterate enough as it is, that when an opaque term like “what is a category 1” came up, someone hand waved over it and said “think Facebook or Twitter”
- I’ve been using it for a year and can’t say it does anything I couldn’t do with dwm, xmonad, i3wm over my past 18 years of tiling WM experience.
- That and the paragraph above:
> What makes this powerful is that these aren’t just type definitions - they’re live, reactive objects that sync automatically.
Is what twigged my AI radar too. LLM’s seem to really love that summarisation pattern of `{X is/isn’t just Y. Pithy concluding remark}`
- Actions compose, types (generally) don’t. So Monad X and Monad Y may not make a valid Monad Z, but Kleisi composition very much exists for actions within a monad.
- To which implementation is the author referring, I wonder?
I can’t say I recognise any of these issues from freer, polysemy, nor bluefin.
- Yeah, the steam operators raised hell over having to follow the central locking for doors and sealing of windows passengers could stick their head out of.
Wasn’t even prospective, preventative action. There was pretty rash series of decapitations/fatalities in the past decade of people who think sticking their head out of a moving train is risk free that lead to this ruling being made mandatory.
They kicked off claiming it would ruin the ambience, but really it cost a very pretty penny.
They’d do anything to save a few quid; it’s amazing how they used to get cheap oil lube and coal from Russia, and since the war they’ve miraculously been managing to procure the same rates from new companies that have appeared overnight/moved production to sanction-less countries just over the border like Latvia, Lithuania, Kazakhstan etc.
- I’m a dynamics/kinematics engineer who gets consulted by steam locomotive companies often, and they’re very much worth doing financially speaking.
They certainly wouldn’t be your only venture, more “you have a lot of money and love trains” but seats on these things can run for £2k a head and they run basically every day from Spring through to end of Summer.
- Glad I’m not alone in this; I’ve seen niche roles up for 16 months. Do these roles even exist? Are they waiting on the most golden of geese?
- > Is that so? Sounds very wrong to me. If we want to go the monad joke way, monads have to have an operation (a -> m b) that composes, but those are just normal functions, and there’s nothing curried about it. It’s a statement that one could bend enough so it’s kind of right, but what it really does is raise eyebrows.
I can see where they’re coming from, but they certainly haven’t set the stage for it to be a something you could deduce without already knowing what they’re referencing.
So to me, it seems they’re referencing the Free Monad, recursion schemes and a little of HomFunctor/Yoneda Lemma.
The free monad gives a coproduct of functions, where the value is either a recursive call or a value (branch vs node). To get from a set to a free monad, you need to define a Functor over the set, and given most things are representable, this is trivial.
Given this free monad, an algebra can be formed over it by providing a catamorphism, where the binary function would indeed be composition.