fkcgnad · HackerTrans

3 tahun yang laludiscuss

I think it's just luck. In terms of big tech most of the US is like Europe. It's only silicon valley that has this type of innovation.

But the innovation has been around a singular avenue of software. It is a mistake to think that software is the most important driver of economic growth.

fkcgnad

3 tahun yang laludiscuss

Information is an illusion. What are you going to do with pure information? Nothing.

For information to be worthwhile it must be actualized into physical reality.

There is huge practical evidence for this. China. The technological rise of China is unlike anything ever before seen in history. The reason why china rose is because of the massive transfer of industrial knowhow of manufacturing aka the actualizing information. We gave them the means of becoming powerful while we ourselves moved higher up the stack.

fkcgnad

3 tahun yang laludiscuss

Ambition has it's downsides. Risk does not always return with reward and often the reward has a high cost.

Such attitudes exist for a good reason. But at the same time the alternative attitude also exists for a good reason.

fkcgnad

3 tahun yang laludiscuss

They don't compete. They reap the benefits of technological innovation without the need to push their own citizens to do the same.

It's a smart strategy. Smart phones , AI and Google come from the states, but that doesn't even matter given that Europeans have full access to everything.

fkcgnad

3 tahun yang laludiscuss

Yes but European economies benefit from the American approach without all the downsides. You guys got Google and smartphones and AI in the past couple decades. Europeans lack technical innovation and they don't need it because the innovation comes from somewhere else before percolating into the European economy for free.

The European approach is the winning approach so long as at least one country does all the hard work.

fkcgnad

3 tahun yang laludiscuss

[dead]

fkcgnad

3 tahun yang laludiscuss

The author is talking about restructuring syntax in the destructing match.

Rust Has this with "match" but only via a single ref.

You would have to make alternative restructuring syntax to go into the match expression if you want it to work.

Hypothetically:

   fn g(v: Option<i32>) -> Option<Option<i32>> {

        match v {
            Some(_Some(_Some(x))),
            None(_None)
        }
    }

Any character with an underscore is a "restructuring" syntax here. Rust only does restructuring with references via the ref keyword and it only does it once per var per expression. The syntax I presented here is hypothetical of course.

I would say it's more syntactic sugar as you can do the restructuring on the right side of the match expression. You can make up an entire functional language using this technique and eliminate the => and everything after it.

I largely agree with you that it's not exactly necessary to do this. Arguably it makes things harder to read.

fkcgnad

3 tahun yang laludiscuss

The concept is arbitrary. It's a made up concept. It's an arbitrary collection of empathic and and sympathetic traits bundled up together to be a definition of another arbitrary word.

Similar to "what is sentience?" People are arbitrarily ascribing different traits like intelligence, free will and aspects of "understanding" to the word "sentience". When people debate over whether a thing is "sentient" or not they are simply debating about the definition of a vocabulary word. What traits does the word "sentience" encompass? That's it. The vagueness of the definition of the word is what's illusory here.

The collection of traits that make up a definition are arbitrarily chosen to be vague. The word actualizes the arbitrary concept and the vagueness follows it making you think that you are discussing a concept when you are only discussing a definition.

There is nothing profound to talk about here. You're just trying to differentiate subtle differences between two vocabulary words here. The concepts behind the words themselves are by themselves ultimately simplistic.

Something profound and related to empathy is the discussion of the chemicals behind the emotions. The exact neural and biological pathway to actualization of these emotions. Additionally the evolutionary origin of these emotions. Why has natural caused some of us to feel this way and others to feel less this way. This is profound. What is not profound is the difference between the vocabulary words: empathy and sympathy.

fkcgnad

3 tahun yang laludiscuss

I think the content of this post is pretty bad and a lot of it is bullshit. But I disagree with your logic here.

You should not flag a post based off of character you should flag a post based off of the content.

Deepaks reputation should not preclude his article from getting posted here if the post is genuinely good.

Let's focus on the statement he is making himself rather then judging the person behind the statement.

Either way, like I said I think the whole discussion on arbitrary definitions of random words is bs, but that is besides the point I am making here.

fkcgnad

3 tahun yang laludiscuss

>It's a male-heavy class and when these terms come up, they tend to laugh it off as some kind of esotherical side-quest.

It is a sort of side quest. You think the discussion is about something profound but really you're just discussing English vocabulary.

You're taking arbitrary symbols/words with arbitrarily vague meanings and trying to demarcate an exact meaning as if the words exist intrinsically in reality. They don't, all words are made up.

It's like I make up this word "mokadan" and I define it as the difference in emotion between what a dog feels for its human owner and what a human owner feels for his dog.

You see what I did there? you can talk about that mokadan for days trying to pin down whats going on with the word but it's just something that's arbitrarily made up by me. I can make up other vague concepts as well and assign it random vocab like "somofin": the shape that is exactly in between a hexagon and semicircle. And now a group of people can spend days trying draw what that shape exactly is. Sort of a pointless endeavor down what I call linguistic trap doors that disguise themselves as deep concepts.

The thing with human language is that all of it is made up. All language consists of made up words and symbols attached to arbitrary definitions. The languages are so entrenched in our brains that we often can't see the difference between actual concepts and vague vocabulary. So often We get stuck in discussing what is simply linguistic phenomena like what is the difference between "sympathy" and "empathy." Other trap doors include what is "life" or what is "sentience".

The vagueness of the word is arbitrary because humans picked to define the word vaguely. The vagueness is manufactured, it's artificial. There's no real point in trying to unroll all of it.

You commented on how you were in a male dominated class implying that there's something inherit with males being too simplistic and laughing off the discussion.

I think the opposite is true. The "males" who laughed it off are in a higher plane of meta understanding and they comprehend the pointlessness of trying to demarcate vague vocabulary. They were right to laugh it off in my opinion.

I was in a class that were mostly females and when they tried to veer off the discussion into one of these linguistic traps. I attempted to explain to them the concept of the linguistic trap they were falling for but my efforts were in vain. They were perplexed by my explanation and still didn't understand. They continued down that trap door and ended up wasting everyone's time.

fkcgnad

3 tahun yang laludiscuss

The list on rust here isn't opinionated. It's a general swath of every resource that's available.

fkcgnad

3 tahun yang laludiscuss

Just get the basics down for traits, borrowing and move semantics. Make sure you have thorough understanding of heap and stack. Once those are down you can move on to projects.

Rust is sufficiently complex that you have to do projects to encounter every nook and cranny of even the core language. Other language like python expertise in the language often involves knowing the libraries.

fkcgnad

3 tahun yang laludiscuss

From the analytical trends and tooling it's passed the hump of mainstream in the sense that it can be used for prod. It's sort of culty still but it's no longer a niche thing anymore and very usable.

The only avenue that it has yet to penetrate is gaming. No other language has achieved this yet, and rust is the closest.

comments