This is significant semantic drift from the original meaning of yak shaving.
Building your own is great, but it's not yak shaving.
Yak shaving is fixing fractal brokenness that you notice while punching through layers of existing systems to finally fix the root cause of the original thing you cared about.
They didn't. Pure lambda calculus would have been "a function that when applied to a number encoded as a function, extracts that value".
They did it essentially as a linked list, C-strings, or UTF-8 characters: "current data, and is there more (next pointer, non-null byte, continuation bit set)?" They also noted that it could have this semantics without necessarily following this implementation encoding, though that seems like a dodge to me; length-prefixed array is a perfectly fine primitive to have, and shouldn't be inferred from something that can map to it.
They are quite related, but the Fourier transform seems far more beautiful and generalizable: you can do 2-d, 3-d, etc transforms, and they automatically respect the symmetries of the problems (e.g. rotating the coordinate system rotates the Fourier transform in a corresponding way; frequencies and wave-vectors have meanings). This fully extends to any "nice" abelian group satisfying minor technical conditions, where the mapping is to it's dual group. It even mostly extends to non-abelian groups (representation theory), though some nice properties are lost.
The Laplace transform shines in having nicer convergence properties in some specific cases. While those are extremely valuable for control problems, it really is a much more specialized theory, not nearly as widely applicable. (You can come up with n-d versions. The obvious thing to do is copy the Fourier case and iteratively Laplace transform on each coordinate; the special role of one direction either directly in the unilateral case, or indirectly via growth properties in the bilateral case make it hard to argue that this can develop to something more unifying; the domain isn't preserved under rotation.)
No, humans can't inspect their own weights either -- but we're not LLMs and don't store all knowledge implicitly as probabilities to output next token. It's pretty clear that we also store some knowledge explicitly, and can include context of that knowledge.
(To be sure, there are plenty of cases where it is clear that we are only making up stories after the fact about why we said or did something. But sometimes we do actually know and that reconstruction is accurate.)
> The one place that X could use some updating is all the sync method calls, that unlike RDP become quite slow if the network connection has any real latency.
I wouldn't say the one place, but it is a pain point.
(And actually, many of the supposedly synchronous things are not synchronous at the protocol level, but at the C library binding level -- xlib. Nowadays there's a much closer to the protocol binding: libxcb.)
Yes, and I don't want to switch to a pure stack from _any_ desktop environment. I want all these things to easily mix and match. And for all these things outside the pure wayland protocol (and some supposedly inside it), they don't.
I don't see why Facebook needs to censor "questionable" sexual content. Individual users and groups have adequate tools to control what they themselves see.
The only point of Facebook's censorship is to control what the willing can see.