For the curious, I suggest reading Philp Wadler's "Theorems for free!" which explains how to derive a theorem for a given type. Practically, this helps compilers make certain optimizations based on the theorems it derives from the types.
I disagree, it depends on the kind of programming you do. Build fancy typeclasses to do black magic in Haskell? Then _perhaps_. Write kernel modules for custom functionality in C? Then learning ct is like a fish learning to climb a tree.
The mathematician Paul Erdős often referred to "The Book" in which God keeps the most elegant proof of each mathematical theorem. He once said "You don't have to believe in God, but you should believe in The Book."
Pretty sure it wasn't piracy. For instance see this[0] book (not affiliated), at the bottom left it says "Restricted! For sale only in India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka & Bhutan"
“The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato” - Alfred North Whitehead
Reminds me of Russell's quote - “Mathematics, rightly viewed, possesses not only truth, but supreme beauty—a beauty cold and austere, like that of sculpture, without appeal to any part of our weaker nature, without the gorgeous trappings of painting or music, yet sublimely pure, and capable of a stern perfection such as only the greatest art can show.”
Ramana's experience with a near death incident reminds me of Wittgenstein enrolling in the army for the war so that he can have a near death experience himself
> It's the equivalent of a person making a blog post about a tv series they don't watch but have seen the trailer for; no actual value to add to the discussion about the topic.
IMO a more accurate analogy would be a person dropping a tv series in between, in which case they can indeed add value to the discussion - why they dropped the series etc.
