I used to work on a logistics company and we had to map latitude and longitude to specific directions. One of the first things I learnt was to avoid storing 6 decimal precision coordinates. Also, this XKCD was shared a lot https://xkcd.com/2170/
This is textbook survivorship bias. Out of 133 electable cardinals, someone was bound to guess Robert Prevost. If they were wrong, no one would remember. You could probably find 132 others who guessed wrong.
Ty: 2.5 seconds, 1599 diagnostics, almost all of which are false positives
Pyright: 13.6 seconds, 10 errors, all of which are actually real errors
There's plenty of potential here, but Ty's type inference is just not as sophisticated as Pyright's at this time. That's not surprising given it hasn't even been released yet.
Whether Ty will still perform so much faster once all of Pyright's type inference abilities have been matched or implemented - well, that remains to be seen.
Pyright runs on Node, so I would expect it to be a little slower than Ty, but perhaps not by very much, since modern JS engines are already quite fast and perform within a factor of ~2-3x of Rust. That said, I'm rooting for Ty here, since even a 2-3x performance boost would be useful.
uvx mypy . 0.46s user 0.09s system 74% cpu 0.740 total
So ty is about 7x faster - but remember ty is still in development and may not catch the same errors / report false errors, so it's not a fair comparison yet.
Note that `uvx mypy` may give you inaccurate timings on macOS. The antivirus in macOS goes a little crazy the first time it executes a mypyc compiled program.
> Religion needs science to keep it away from superstition and keep it close to reality, to protect it from creationism, which at the end of the day is a kind of paganism – it's turning God into a nature god
That quotes needs some unpacking, because many people have caricaturish notions of things like "faith" or "science" or "religion".
> Religion needs science to keep it away from superstition and keep it close to reality
To make this more comprehensible, I will render this as "Faith needs reason to keep it away from superstition and keep it close to reality" or "to make faith actually faith, not wishful thinking or superstition". That is the Catholic view.
True faith, pace pop culture, is never blind. Faith concerns what is beyond what is knowable through reason. This is the reason for the parental analogies in the Bible. A child cannot understand why a parent is guiding him a certain way, but he trusts the parent to guide him well. By analogy, human reason cannot know certain things in its present condition, but some things have been revealed on authority established by other evidence or truths (hence why Christ argues from the Torah, etc. and performs thousands of miracles, with the resurrection at the pinnacle, to demonstrate his identity and his authority). So, faith is no substitute for reason; instead, reason puts faith in its place. In the beatific vision, faith is no longer necessary, analogously to how when a child becomes an adult, he no longer needs to trust his parents in the way he used to. He himself knows the things his parents did when he still did not.
> to protect it from creationism
I don't know what this means. Partly, this is because "creationism" is equivocal and means various things.
The Catholic position accepts creatio ex nihilo, which is to say that the universe is created/kept in existence by God - the first cause - out of nothing, i.e., not as a mutation or transformation of some preexisting being. It has no official position on "evolution" per se (which is also equivocal), but it does reject evolutionism which is a metaphysical position. There is no official position about the details of how the first parents came to be, but it does hold that there were first parents from whom all other humans descend. The intellect and will (usually called the "soul") are taken to be the result of special acts of creation at each conception, and therefore not something generated by the parents.
Catholics are permitted to believe in a range of evolutionary explanations (like adaptation and selection) and they are permitted to believe that the universe was created in 6 days (though blanket Biblical literalism is not traditional and rather modern; note that the Catholic Church compiled the diverse genres making up the Bible in the first place). Most Catholics probably accept the general prevailing cosmological view of an old universe, a figurative 6 days, evolutionary explanations in relation to the human body plan, etc. This may seem odd to those who come from certain American evangelical circles, which tend to get more attention in the American media.
Those with a taste for speculation about how modern biology and Biblical accounts might be reconciled will find Ed Feser's posts [0][1] on the subject interesting.
> which at the end of the day is a kind of paganism – it's turning God into a nature god
This is interesting, because one thing that is characteristic of paganism is that the gods are of the world. They are beings like us, or personifications of natural phenomena. But God in the Catholic sense is not a being among many, but Being Itself by which all beings are.
I'm not sure what Br. Guy's definition of "creationism" is here, though. A web search doesn't really give me a coherent picture of what he means either. I suspect he may be attacking a mechanistic metaphysics in which secondary causality doesn't really exist and God is some kind of cosmic occasionalist puppet master. In that sense, I you could argue it sounds more pagan - or pan(en)theistic - rather than Christian.
I can’t say I manage to convince myself of any supernatural argument, but I often find them fascinating, and the philosophy and theology in Christianity is a lot more complex and interesting than many other atheists give it credit for (although I tend to agree it is “complicated” rather than “complex”, making knots for itself to untie, but I think this about secular philosophy too).
How did you build this understanding of theology? Any book you’d recommend?
> In the beatific vision, faith is no longer necessary
Many traditions argue that faith and hope are temporary, since in God's presence all is revealed. But on the basis of Paul's statement "these three remain: faith, hope, and love, but the greatest of these is love", others argue that faith and hope remain within the culminating beatific vision, since even the saints in his presence know him truly but not fully in the infinity of his nature. Faith and hope are at that point an enduring confidence that he will continue to be and do what is ultimately for his glory and our good throughout the "ages to come."
A miracle, by definition, transcends the nature of the thing in question. The cause is not attributable to the power of the thing effected or anything in the world.
If God is distinct from what is created, then a miracle cannot be said to be a manifestation of what is created. Pantheism, on the other hand, must deny miracles, because God and the universe are one, and so all apparent miracles are merely unaccounted for manifestations of reality and perhaps explainable by "some future human theory of reality".
Since Jesuits (ostensibly) hold to a Catholic view in which God and the created order are distinct, they must therefore believe that miracles are not only possible, but do happen. The question is then largely whether a particular effect is miraculous or not.
There are two examples in the repo, one with CoRT and another one without. And the one without it it's much better than the one that uses it. Weird choice of examples...
The astral team (behind uv and ruff) is already working on a type checker in Rust, and given the quality of their existing tools, I'm inclined to wait and see what they release. Pyrefly looks interesting, but from the repo it seems pretty early-stage and not intended for external use yet.
Also Facebook has a history of releasing the source code for something. Making a huge splash and then essentially doing nothing after 3 months (aka after someone gets their review).
They use the code internally but fail at making sure it has use externally. This is doubly the case for anything infrastructure
Buck2: Was released. Never could be built correctly without the latest nightly of Rust and even then it was fragile outside of Meta's build architecture
Sapling: Has a whole bunch of excitement and backing when it was announced. Has been essentially dead 3 mos after release.
I used to work for Meta infra. I know the MO. Have a hard time trusting.
Astral use-case is external and has a better chance of actually being supported.
We know we can't just ask for trust upfront. Instead, we want to earn it by showing up consistently and following through on our commitments. So, take us for a spin and see how we do over time. We're excited to prove ourselves!
Sorry I didn't mean it's not dead but it really hasn't got as much feature support. Things like LFS support got deproritized just because the internal team asking for it got a different feature.
Both are EXTREMELY active but only for the needs of Meta and not for the community.
Adoption outside of Meta is nearly non-existent because of this.
Look at something like Jujitsu. instead of Sapling and you can see a lot more community support, a lot more focus on features that are needed for everyone (still no LFS support, but it wasn't because Google didn't need it).
I guess I don't consider a larger number of commits as actively supporting the community. The community use is second place and the open source is just a one time boost to recruiting PR.
When I was there (which was a while ago) almost every decision was based around PSC (Performance Summary Cycle) and it's easy to justify a good rating for a large project being open sourced. Less so to make sure it's well supported for the use cases of the community.
I guess the biggest limitation of this approach is that the max output length is fixed before generation starts. Unlike autoregressive LLM, which can keep generating forever.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide