Isn’t functional stuff closely related to type theory & type systems in all langs? In that sense, it’s prevented whole classes of bugs from ever getting to prod in the first place.

Responsible for 0% of code in production

Best code is no code at all

Every line of code by Claude Code, eh?

How old were they, when they had those experiences? I’ve been thinking I need to have them feel they’ve wasted “their own” money to develop a sense of regret, too.

What did you do?

Do you have a version with type annotations, perhaps in a gist?

That’s not “a fix”, that’s called “a practical workaround” which is used in the real world all the time.

What aspects of coding?

Turing Tumble is a marble run puzzle game that’s Turing complete, i.e. in the abstract sense, it can compute anything a computer could. It implements bit flippers, logic gates, and memory using falling marbles and levers. Completely mechanical and very tactile.

For textual programming, check out Hedy, a language designed for the classroom. It stands out vs others like Scratch or Snap because Hedy is gradual. A presentation by its creator

Here: https://fsharpforfunandprofit.com/rop/

A very practical and tangible walkthrough

Yeah, that explanation is missing the critical point of generically applying external functions through flat_map/bind

I think this is a good explanation: https://fsharpforfunandprofit.com/rop/

In the short term, I would:

isVibrating = waveformParameters != null // may have just started
if (isVibrating) {
    waveformParameters.Shape = WaveformShape.Square;
    widget.UpdateWaveformParameters(waveformParameters);
}

In the longer term, unless there’s a good reason not to, I’d nudge the implementation towards having the code read more like:

widget.update(waveformParameters);

In practical terms, “monad” means “chainable”.

Classier than listing every program individually?

I mean… Isn’t that?

It’s “~~beat~ [guess] the hash [with distributed gamified brute force]”

And there are inflection points where it’s going it be easier to cut out the middlemen.

Efficiency of living is not static, I wouldn’t be surprised if it were possible to sustainably support 10B people with a relatively high standard of living.

I heard the following metric recently:

But in China, in 2013, China had terrible particulate air pollution. It was known around the world as the airpocalypse (ph) on a - a 700 on a scale of air pollution from zero to 500, the U.S. embassy reported. And, you know, over the decade after 2013, the size of the Chinese population grew by 50 million people. And so if more people were always worse for the environment, you might think that particle air pollution in China would have gotten worse. But, in fact, particle air pollution in China fell by half, even while the population grew.

Efficiency of living is only starting to come into the public consciousness, and we’re barely rewarding the exploration of that space. I think we’ll find there are a ton of improvements to be had.

That said, it’s a “after we survive the crisis” outlook. It seems hardship from climate change is already inevitable, especially in this upcoming century.

How would a page fetch new messages for you without JS?

What about encrypted DNS?

Realistically, even if enacted, would be tricky to implement, and would definitely have to be done slowly not to shock the economy.

I think this also means creating a system where companies beyond a certain size cannot be privately owned and must be governed by large “committees”, since beyond a certain evaluation, concentrated controlling entities would be forced to sell off.

Long shot research and development (e.g. think employing thousands for a decade, like drug development) could probably be harder to get started, but at the same time less corruptible due to spreading out power.

I do think spreading out power can be a good thing, but I have to acknowledge that would probably make the government much more powerful (i.e. corruptible) by comparison.

Also, a lot of wealth is tied up in non-liquid assets, so these billionaires would be forced/incentivized to hold more liquid value – who’d want to hold something that can be capped one year only to have it fall the next?

So on one hand, a ton of market value disappears from the economy due to increased supply, yet on the other a ton of hoarded value is unlocked to circulate in the economy.

Anyway, don’t know where I’m going with this, I’m not an expert by any means.

That video is super, super wrong, and nowhere even close to “just a different perspective”. To demonstrate, Mercury and Venus should periodically come between the Sun and Earth, but that’ll never happen in that model.