In math, the utility lies in the proof itself. A novel proof of a hard problem usually comes with new insights and abstractions that help solve even more mathematical problems.
To go with your analogy, mathematicians care more about the source code of the program than about the result of the program. But I'm afraid that we will see things change with the increase of vibecoded proof slop. A black box proof is not as useful, even if it is correct.
European banks offer the credit, but the payments infrastructure currently goes through US companies. The first step is to get those payment processors out of the picture.
In Brazil, which is further along in the transition to digital cash, PIX already supersedes debit cards. Some banks already offer deferred PIX payments, wherein the merchant receives the money right away and the buyer pays their bank later, with interest. The central bank is also developing a "pix with guarantee", which will compete with credit cards: payment would be agreed to be settled at a later date, with the bank guaranteeing that the merchant will receive the money.
* Some kind of scans, like CT scans, use ionizing radiation and should not be done too often.
* Looking at only imaging scans it is often impossible to tell apart a cancer and a benign growth. (More invasive tests would still be required, which was what the parent posters were warning about)
They want two players with the same seed to have a similar gameplay experience in terms of challenges encountered.
For this reason they want to isolate the RNG that procedurally generates maps, card rewards, shop contents, from other RNG streams such as the RNG used by random enemy attacks in battles, random event outcomes, etc.
One example of the wonky things that are possible when there is a single RNG stream is speedrunners manipulate the RNG state. For example, in Super Mario 64 they can jump in place to produce dust clouds that advance the RNG state until it is in a favorable position.
In the post, the ladybird maintainers say that they trust pull requests less than they used to, because many pull requests are authored by AI now. A big pull request no longer signals that the submitter put in a lot of work into it and it's committed to developing and maintaining quality code.
The article has a section covering this. According to them, finding Haskell talent is not difficult, the bigger problem is onboarding them into the company coding style because Haskell developers come with strong opinions.
As you said, it's more like CPU stack frames. In a register VM all instructions can read and write to any position in the stack frame. In a stack VM, most instructions only read and write to the top but they are often combined with LOAD and STORE instructions, which can read and write to any position in the stack frame.
The author seems to complain about a lack of stack manip expressions like dup and rot, but at least for me that's what I would expect from an average programming language stack machine. Even Java, which does have those instructions, doesn't use them --- reuse happens via local variables.
The way I see it, the difference between register and stack vms is all about the instruction encoding. Register VMs have fatter instructions in exchange for needing fewer LOAD and STORE operations. Despite the name, register VMs also have a stack.
I have always had this problem with hooks and new contributors: since hooks don't run by default if you just clone the repository, my open source projects get many PRs from new contributors that did not run the linting and commit hooks. I understand there's a security reason for this but what workflows have worked best for you to get everyone to run the hooks? And do you think the new config-based hooks can help new contributors?
That EWD is one if my pet peeves. Dijkstra makes an unfair comparison because he lists plenty of examples where 0-based indexing is more convenient but ignores the equally numerous situations where 1-based is more convenient. For example, iterating backwards over an array is much better in an 1-based world.
Tail call optimization optimizes the situations where the recursion doesn't actually need any stack space, but I think the parent poster is asking about situations that aren't tail recirsive.
It's indeed very mechanical and some programming languages can do it for you.
I think you're mainly asking for heap-allocated stacks. Some languages always use the heap for stack frames instead of the native stack and can set the stack limit as high as there's memory available.
You might also want to look into stackful coroutines, which allow one to pause the execution of a recursive function and switch to another function. This can provide you with multiple call stacks, which is another reason people sometimes choose to use write explicit stacks.
Few students do optional assignments unfortunately. Other tasks that are directly worth a gradetend to take priority (e.g. studying for another class that has an exam this week).
Students are also people. If we're managing a software project, a single deadline at the end is sure to suffer from delays. It's better to split things into shorter deliverables with more frequent feedback.
Students are very grade-motivated and unfortunately they rarely do the homework assignments if they are not worth points.
At-home coding projects, writing essays, etc also exercise different skiils than you can test for in a 2 hour written exam. It's unfortunate that due to rampant AI cheating, we can no longer reward the students who put in the work and develop these skills.
To go with your analogy, mathematicians care more about the source code of the program than about the result of the program. But I'm afraid that we will see things change with the increase of vibecoded proof slop. A black box proof is not as useful, even if it is correct.