antidesitter (u/antidesitter)

antidesitter commented on Myths about Perl 6 aearnus.github.io/2019/07... · Posted by u/lizmat

overgard · 6 years ago

The latter looks gross, but has something the former doesnt: words and names. Even if it's verbose and ugly, I can at least puzzle it out just based on the information at hand (I can figure out that <> is similar to (), and Enumerable/Select/Func/Collection/Result are all words I can figure out). I wouldn't be able to write that expression without knowing the language, but, I can read it, even if it's gross. It's also much easier to lookup. I can google IEnumerable a lot more easily than "what is -> after ::".

The haskell version on the other hand is undeniably more elegant, but if I don't know those symbols I'm ENTIRELY lost. There's nothing about :: that means anything to me if I don't look it up. Likewise -> only implies... a transform of some sort? And [a] might mean a list, or, it might mean optional, or it might mean... lots of things.

To be clear, I like the haskell version better, but it is more opaque to a beginner.

antidesitter · 6 years ago

> I can google IEnumerable a lot more easily than "what is -> after ::"

That's not really a fair comparison. You're comparing an identifier in one language with the basic syntax of the other. The correct comparison would be whether : {} <> [] , ++ ; & * and other syntax structures of the C-like counterpart are more easily searchable or understandable than those of Haskell, which I don't think is the case.

antidesitter commented on Public Highly Critical of State of Political Discourse in the U.S. people-press.org/2019/06/... · Posted by u/hhs

dang · 6 years ago

You're right actually; that one was ok. The reply was not ok.

I'm also not ok with "Don't be ridiculous, dang"—responding to a request not to break the site guidelines by flagrantly breaking them again signals bad faith and a desire not to use the site as intended. If I were going strictly by probability, it would make the most sense to just ban you for that, because commenters who react that way almost never reform. I won't do that now, but please just correct how you're posting here. It isn't hard. All you have to do is take the site guidelines to heart and choose to practice them.

Another poor sign is that we've had this kind of conversation before. As I explained to you in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18581673, it's a poor use of our time and energy to play the cross-examination game with commenters who don't adhere to the guidelines and react with endless questions when we point that out. Users who do that nearly always turn out to be a liability for the community.

antidesitter · 6 years ago

I already addressed that under the very comment you linked to. The fact that you readily accuse me of breaking the rules but then consider discussing the merits of that accusation as "too tiring" and "playing a game of cross-examination" is very concerning.

Also, notice how some of my comments are, without any valid reason, being falsely flagged and silently hidden from view. What do you make of that?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20379602

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20378337

I have no intention of emailing you to "appeal" this retaliatory ban, because you've made it clear that you will ban anyone for questioning the merit of your accusations. You've made a mockery of the HN moderation process.

antidesitter commented on Public Highly Critical of State of Political Discourse in the U.S. people-press.org/2019/06/... · Posted by u/hhs

dang · 6 years ago

I'm talking about your comments as a whole, which contain many examples of dismissiveness, hostility, and unsubstantiveness. Your first comment upthread was obviously unsubstantive, and the later one was unsubstantive, hostile, and broke the site guideline against going on about downvotes.

>> we've had to ask you this multiple times before > Really? Name them.

Here are some cases:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20067517

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18580940

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18581017

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17832784

antidesitter · 6 years ago

> Your first comment upthread was obviously unsubstantive

Which one? The one asking for a source on an incredible claim? That's not welcome on HN?

Regarding the cases you linked to, only the first and last are valid. The second and third (which are the same, so I have no idea why you posted two links) don't violate any HN guidelines, as a careful reading of the conversation would make obvious.

antidesitter commented on Public Highly Critical of State of Political Discourse in the U.S. people-press.org/2019/06/... · Posted by u/hhs

dang · 6 years ago

Would you please stop posting dismissive, hostile, and/or unsubstantive comments to HN? You've been doing it a lot, and it goes against the site guidelines. So does complaining about downvotes. If you would please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and practice the spirit of this site more earnestly, we'd appreciate it. I know it isn't easy, but it isn't easy for any of us—and we've had to ask you this multiple times before.

antidesitter · 6 years ago

Don’t be ridiculous, dang. Requesting sources for an incredible and unsubstantiated claim is in no way “dismissive, hostile, and/or unsubstantive”.

> You've been doing it a lot

I don’t think so. Did you have some particular examples in mind?

antidesitter commented on Public Highly Critical of State of Political Discourse in the U.S. people-press.org/2019/06/... · Posted by u/hhs

antidesitter · 6 years ago

So no sources, just a downvote. As expected.

antidesitter commented on Public Highly Critical of State of Political Discourse in the U.S. people-press.org/2019/06/... · Posted by u/hhs

traderjane · 6 years ago

Isn't the American president a barometer or descriptive reflection of the democratic population? Or does one define American conservatism by reciting a prescription of what people ought be when they say they're conservative?

Similarly I presume the rise of Boris Johnson with Brexit is a reflection of the British people, regardless of whether he has his conservative credentials in order.

antidesitter · 6 years ago

> Isn't the American president a barometer or descriptive reflection of the democratic population?

For a sufficiently loose definition of “reflection”, yes. For a sufficiently tight definition of “reflection”, no.

> does one define American conservatism by reciting a prescription of what people ought be when they say they're conservative

One defines conservatism by a set of values and policies. The same goes for liberalism, fascism, communism, environmentalism, nationalism, etc.

antidesitter commented on Wigner's Friend en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wig... · Posted by u/monort

atq2119 · 6 years ago

Honest question: Do physicists studying these problems genuinely believe that these experiments show some kind of conflict or paradox, or is this just a case of people writing clickbait articles?

I'm not a physicist and only dug deeply enough into the topic to understand the basic quantum algorithms for factoring and discrete logarithm, but it seems to me that there is very obviously no conflict. It's just that the "observer of the observer" observes a meta-reality that contains all possible realities observed by the "observer". There doesn't seem anything strange about this if you just don't insist on "measurement" having a special physical meaning and accept the universal wave function. But maybe there's a twist I'm missing.

antidesitter · 6 years ago

It’s clickbait. These experiments show no inconsistency in quantum mechanics, which can be easily seen if you think about the whole system as a single wavefunction under unitary evolution. And as someone else mentioned, “observers” are part of that wavefunction. Fundamentally, they follow the same rules.

antidesitter commented on Public Highly Critical of State of Political Discourse in the U.S. people-press.org/2019/06/... · Posted by u/hhs

ntsplnkv2 · 6 years ago

> I like conservatism when it comes to the 1st and 2nd amendment protection

With a president that openly labels the press the enemy of the people?

> If it were possible to transcend parties and vote just for candidates that represented my nuanced beliefs, I would switch in a heartbeat.

It's impossible. Everyone will have their nuanced beliefs and no candidate will match perfectly except in rare circumstances.

antidesitter · 6 years ago

You’re equating the president with conservatism?