Sorry for the large aside, but anyone knows the whereabouts of the Flambda2 project? Can't find the GH repo anymore, only this fork I didn't know about: https://github.com/oxcaml/oxcaml/
That's the repo, Jane Street has rebranded their OCaml fork to OxCaml (as in oxidised, Rust-like). From the readme:
> This is also the home of the Flambda 2 optimiser
Their plan is to use OxCaml as their experimental fork and work with upstream to port features from it. Labelled tuples and immutable arrays for example landed in OCaml 5.4 but were originally from OxCaml.
Tried gron (https://github.com/tomnomnom/gron) a bit? If you know your UNIX, I think it can replace jq in a lot of cases. And when it can't, well, you can reach for Python, I guess.
Common Lisp doesn't use (expensive) CLOS dispatch in the core language, e.g. to add two numbers or find the right equality operator. That's one known pain point due to CLOS having been "bolted-on" rather than part of the language which makes the divide between internal (using typecase and similar) and external (generic functions) dispatch pretty ugly; and gave use the eql/equal/equalp/etc... hell.
Julia is always the odd one out, when talking about dynamic vs. static dispatch, because its JIT compiler acts more like an Ahead-of-Time compiler in many regards.
In the best case, types are statically decidable and Julia's compiler just produces a static dispatch and native code like e.g. a C compiler would.
In the worst case, there are a big (or unlimited) number of type candidates.
The grey area in between, where there are a limited number of type candidates, is interesting. As far as I understand, Julia does something similar to the link you provided. Based on some heuristics it will compile instances for a "sealed" number of candidates and fallback to a fully dynamic dispatch, if there are two many type candidates.
For the worst case scenario, Julia chooses what's in my regard the nuclear option: If the types are not decidable, it just ships the whole compiler with your code and tries again at runtime.
But I guess, that's not the only possible solution. Presumably, it would also be possible to fallback to a Julia interpreter for dynamic code. That would be more similar to what JavaScript is doing, just the other way around. Instead of interpreting the majority if the code and optimising hot paths with a JIT, our alternative Julia would compile most code statically and use the interpreter for the dynamic parts.
You don't like those? I've always considered them a fairly elegant deconstruction of the problem domain of equality checking. DWIM languages can get very confusing when they DWIM or don't DWIM.
Where's the elegance? Equality is well defined on everything handled by those three, since they only compare the same types without doing coercion. Plus, you can't extend these to handle user types.
AMDs current workstation cards do support UHBR20, just not their consumer cards, even though it's the same silicon. Artificial segmentation on GPUs is nothing new but segmenting on display bandwidth is a strange move, especially when the market leader isn't doing that.
Preface: I'm going to sound quite harsh by changing scales, so put your tough skin on before continuing.
This is certainly worse for the individual, but at society scale, the cost being the obvious devaluation of willpower is way too high. Way too high because everything good in that society was built almost exclusively by driven and strong-willed individuals.
I'll give a reply a go - of course we want strong people. That said, we've introduced incredible amounts of weird new things to the world. Advertising, shit food, tech, and a litany of responsibilities. Some of these are very bad and we all paying heavy prices for it.
I don't think we need to treat every bad thing society does as only needing a "toughen up" solution, instead we should fix the root cause.
An extreme example would be if the government poisons your water, maybe some medicine is ok. We should un-poison the water too, but I'm ok with medicine in the meantime.
Then we should start selecting strong willed individuals who do not fit into the “normie” path as those we uphold and show to be role models and examples.
Instead we collectively shit on them and force them into the most useless lifestyles ever devised - effectively pushing paper on rigid schedules or they don’t get to eat.
I’ve thought about this one quite a bit. The world has narrowed a whole lot to define acceptable behavior and who is allowed a seat at the table.
Almost all those “strong willed” individuals of the past who actually built things had lifestyles that would have gotten them entirely shunned from society today.
It’s not impossible but even compared to 30 years ago it’s an entirely different world for such folks. The way I “came up” in life would not be possible today due to the gatekeepers of “respectable society”.
Needing drugs to fit into that incredibly narrow and basic framework of a life should be of no surprise to anyone. Only a few of incredible luck and willpower and probably even naivety will survive that filter.
This whole topic is the epitome of “show me the incentives and I’ll show you the outcome” - entirely predictable, and it’s what society seems to want.
Expanding on what a sibling comment said, we live in an adversarial environment. A successful food product is one you want to eat, whether you need it or not.
Willpower is important, I agree. Almost everyone needing willpower to not eat, though, is a fairly new phenomenon. If anything, the new drugs restore the balance that existed before —and if willpower is a limited resource, actively help society by returning to us what is taken by the relentless grind of profit maximization.
Willpower to not eat really isn't the same as willpower to eat reasonably (in quantity and quality), though. There's even exercise to offset the effects of suboptimal alimentation.
Either willpower is fungible, in which case it doesn’t matter what you use it on because you’re using it up no matter what, or it isn’t, in which case the original point about losing willpower due to leaning on GPL-1 inhibitors for weight loss is mostly invalid, since it wouldn’t affect the willpower to do other things.
The loss I wrote about is society-wide, not for individuals. Weak-willed people won't change, the problem is the damage to people who have willpower but are basically told it doesn't matter.
It's really a matter of incentives and proper valuation.
Absolute aesthetic relativism is the complete opposite of "thinking about", it's giving up to the cult of modernity, an intellectual shortcut to avoid the complicated and controversial question of "I instinctively know that objective good/bad exists but what is it, to what extent can it be formalized and separated from my opinion, how does it interact with subjective qualities?".
That shortcut leads to a dead end that only contains the rotting corpse of truth and integrity.
reply