I couple of years ago I would ask to collect your coworker’s garbage bin :)

Not as easy to find in my vicinity, at least good ones, which is of course true for any language and profession in general.

I have RoR on my resume and very fond of it.

For me the title is a bit of a contradiction: I always think about the library as “the final language”. So author’s example of RoR/Ruby is “RoR is a great web service language that uses Ruby as the base, they evolved together and arguably as RoR is the main source of clients for ruby, ruby was as well designed for RoR as RoR for ruby”

I think about programming/design as languages/translation in a lot of ways: its languages all the way down.

I agree. c# and asp.net core also co-developed. Interestingly in both direction, towards users (tons of type inference, removing boilerplate, ...) and system (writing highly optimized web servers with low level paradigms)

I believe a reasonable push back to this surveillance increase should be “incresing law precision”, like “fines for making a really dangerous maneuver vs driving fast on an empty road”

“really scaring someone on a bike vs driving on a sidewalk in general”

I wonder how this is the most straightforward way to know that?

Hey, community! Thank you for this opportunity to connect and feel closeness to the best parts and people in our industry.

Thank you for your open mindedness, smarts, stupid fun and lovable nerdiness.

I feel at home here.

One thing that makes me sad are dystopian fears. Not sure if this is warranted or not, but certainly get my dose of dread from HN. But thank you for being so sensitive and caring in this.

Happy thanksgiving.

The most fun on this site is solving a problem and then having your mind blown by solutions in Apl/j/k and trying to guess what they mean without knowing anything about those languages

Even better than the crazy languages, is seeing some fundamental math used to prevent having to do a ridiculously expensive search.

That said, raw brute force often did far better than you'd like to admit.

The biggest thing I learned from PE was that neither elegant theory nor brute force had a monopoly on successful optimization strategies. It's been something I've carried with me ever since and has over and over again proven its value.

A real gem of a resource.

I've solved about a hundred PE problems in Livecode, maybe 40 in Python, and about 20 in J. I highly recommend giving it a try in a language you don't know, it's fun! Especially with something as obscure as J.

See also Uiua, a newcomer to the "extremely cool but completely incomprehensible language" family!

right

You mean that they don’t have access to whole opponent behavior?

It would be hilaroius to allow table talk and see them trying to bluff and sway each other :D

I think by

> LLMs are unable to reason about the underlying reality

OP means that LLMs hallucinate 100% of the time with different levels of confidence and have no concept of a reality or ground truth.

Confidence? I think the word you’re looking for is ‘nonsense’

Make entire chain of thought visible to each other and see if they can evolve into hiding strategies in their cot

pardon my ignorance but how would you make them evolve?

I mean, LLMs have the same sorts of problem with

"Which poker hand is better: 7S8C or 2SJH"

as

"What is 77 + 19"?

thinking then, that requires the extra oxygen

can you provide more context for this claim? my intuition and experience tells me the opposite.

what is the definition here? are impulsive avoidance copings like playing a video game instead of doing the hard work of addressing the worries/planned hard activities not a “video game addiction”?

and if we are talking physical withdrawal, then how should we call the same aspect of nicotine/alcohol addiction mechanics?

there certainly is if you consider 50 moves rule.

And you can derive an easy upper bound from that as 50x8x8x2 (basically each 50 moves you make a pawn move)

if you only consider 3 moves repetition and not 50 move rule then this is harder and the number becomes one of those crazy combinatorical numbers.

> And you can derive an easy upper bound from that as 50x8x8x2 (basically each 50 moves you make a pawn move)

This is not high enough, because the 50 move rule also resets when a piece is captured.

Actually no. 50×(16×6 + 32) = 50×(16× 8) works I think. Every 50 moves, move a pawn or capture. There are 16 pawns. Each pawn can be moved 6 times, so there are 16×6 pawn moves available. In addition there are 32 captures available.

The 50 move rule is a rule of chess so it must be considered.

The 3 repetition rule is an opportunity for one of the players to declare a draw, but games can continue beyond that. The mandatory draw rule is 5 repetitions. In any case, the 50 move rule is far more limiting as to the number of moves in a game, since repetitions are necessarily neither pawn moves nor captures (the whole point of the 50 move rule being limited to those is that they are irreversible).

The 50 moves rule doesn't have be considered as it is optional. The players may claim, but they don't have to. So the game can continue.

The 75 move rule is the exact same thing but mandatory. That has to be considered.

(same thing is true for 5 times repetition vs 3 times).

Captures also reset the counter, not only pawn moves.