I have two questions.

1. After the revolution, how to you prevent the people that were influential during the revolution from seizing power for themselves, becoming the new bourgeoisie. This happened time and time again in practice.

2. Even in the best case scenario, the decisions on what to produce become centralized in the hands of politicians. Political systems that we tried so far don’t work that well in practice. Is this really the best solution?

I started exercising, I quite embarrassingly couldn’t do even a single push-up, I can do 20 now.

My Ender 5 has been lying around for 3 years, maybe I’ll dust it off during the weekend :)

When does the narwhal bacon?

You write it in vim and then copy paste it once you are done.

BTW, why do you need a markdown editor?

deleted by creator

None. I’m kind of surprised most people don’t use lemmy the same way as reddit, I assume nobody just browsed /r/all?

Cataclysm: Dark Days Ahead

It’s a time machine that teleports you to 3am the next day.

Sanmill

Basically nine man’s morris, it’s pretty fun trying to beat progressively harder AI. Each difficulty requires a different (better) strategy. It’s like unlocking levels in a puzzle game.

Play chess.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

Just buy a new SSD to install Linux on. If you decide to switch back just plug the old one in.

I quite enjoy Nix flakes for this. Only certain languages have good support though (C, Rust, Haskell, OCaml, …).

I don’t have 2 mil, how do I get out of this? File for bankruptcy?

Linux is already better than Windows, the latest versions are a mess, and is likely going to get worse.

A package is reproducible if you use the same inputs, run the build, and get the same outputs.

The issue is that the build can produce different outputs given the same inputs. So you need to modify the build or patch the outputs. This is something that is being worked on by most distributions: https://reproducible-builds.org/who/projects/

NixOS is not special in that regard nor are all NixOS packages reproducible.

Nope, nix doesn’t ensure or require that the builds are deterministic. It’s not any better in that regard than other package managers.

It’s not really fully reproducible either.

deleted by creator

As you already figured out the types are sets with a certain number of elements.

Two types are isomorphic if you can write a function that converts all elements of the first one into the elements of the second one and a function which does the reverse. You can then use this as the equality.

The types with the same number of elements are isomorphic, i.e True | False = Left | Right. For example, you can write a function that converts True to Left, False to Right, and a function that does the reverse.

Therefore you essentially only need types 0, 1, 2, 3, …, where type 0 has 0 elements, type 1 has 1 element, etc. and all others are isomorphic to one of these.

Let’s use (*) for the product and (+) for the sum, and letters for generic types. Then you can essentially manipulate types as natural numbers (the same laws hold, associativity, commutativity, identity elements, distributivity).

For example:

2 = 1 + 1 can be interpreted as Bool = True | False

2 * 1 = 2 can be interpreted as (Bool, Unit) = Bool

2 * x = x + x can be interpreted as (Bool, x) = This of x | That of x

o(x) = x + 1 can be interpreted as Option x = Some of x | None

l(x) = o(x * l(x)) = x * l(x) + 1 can be interpreted as List x = Option (x, List x)

l(x) = x * l(x) + 1 = x * (x * l(x) + 1) + 1 = x * x * l(x) + x + 1 = x * x * (l(x) + 1) + x + 1 = x * x * l(x) + x * x + x + 1 so a list is either empty, has 1 element or 2 elements, … (if you keep substituting)

For the expression problem, read this paper: doi:10.1007/BFb0019443

The sum and product types follow pretty much the same algebraic laws as natural numbers if you take isomorphism as equality.

Also class inheritance allows adding behaviour to existing classes, so it’s essentially a solution to the expression problem.