Considering not needing a garbage collector is a goal of Rust, if programming in an ML style without a garbage collector is bad then it sounds like Rust picked the wrong style.
I would specify grandparent's claim a bit more - certain kind of code, frequently used in ML style without a GC is hard/impossible.
E.g. heavily recursive data structures may not be a best fit (also not the best fit for the CPU).
Rust has definitely grown out its own style, which is more of a "strongly typed FP with local-scoped imperative parts", elegantly combining ML's strengths with C/C++-style performant patterns.
Haskell is a pure FP language with what amounts to imperative EDSL's in the form of the ST, STM, and IO monads. Haskell has its own issues, but is that approach of an FP outer layer with embedded imperative sections such a bad approach? If you wanted to not have a GC, you could use just the imperative fragment.
> If you wanted to not have a GC, you could use just the imperative fragment.
I think it would be quite hard in practice to make Haskell not dependent on a GC. What Haskell is most obviously lacking at present is a more elegant story of how to interface "strict" and "lazy" parts of a single program. PLT researchers and logicians have been exploring these questions for some time, coming up with notions such as "polarity" and "focusing", views of some types as "naturally strict" (such as tagged unions), others as "naturally lazy" (such as functions) with still others coming in both strict and lazy varieties ("product" or record types), and elementary operators to shift between "strict" and "lazy" uses of any type - but the practical implications of these concepts in real-world programming language are still unclear. Haskell would make an ideal testing ground as such.
I think it's just not feasible to totally avoid the GC in a language such as Haskell. It's inherently involved in anything that would require heap-allocated data in C/C++, and more besides. For example, Haskell does not have a borrow checker, so it needs the GC to ensure that closures' environments will stick around for as long as they're needed. (The Rust approach is the opposite by default - the compiler errors out whenever a closure will outlive the established lifetime of its referenced environment. You can always use Rc<> or Arc<> to have multiple owners that will all keep a program object alive as needed, but it's not the default.)
It's quite possible to program imperatively with no GC, no borrow checker, and no memory leaks in Haskell or in other languages such as Ada. The main technique is to simply not allocate or free anything, but instead just use fixed buffers, or objects that you have allocated before entering the no-GC region. In Haskell and other GC'd languages, GC generally triggers on allocation, so no allocation = no GC.
Back when memory was scarce this was a well known practice in Lisp. You'd just adopt an ugly style in the parts of the program where performance was important, doing destructive updates instead of consing in order to avoid GC'ing in those parts. Rust's contribution (the borrow checker) is in letting you make more use of dynamic memory allocation while still not using a GC or programming unsafely.
I tried writing simple imperative programs in GHC using the IO and IORef types, and the programs ran about 1000 times slower than analogous programs in C.
You could make the same argument about any piece of software or tool. What about the operating systems this AI is running on!?
I don't think the makers should be held accountable, but ultimately guns are made for shooting things which is naturally a pretty violent act. The gulf between them and AI is pretty wide. A closer analogy would be a sharp tools maker.
He's been ignoring the courts. I don't know what you want them to do? I guess they could put him in prison, but I'm guessing that would be considered harsh too.
Again, for the 2nd time, its not what he's done, it's that he's ignoring everyone telling him to stop, including the government. I don't know what you expect the punishment for that to be. If it were you or I we would have had our asses dragged into prison a long time ago. He's only gotten this far because of his money.
Prison would probably be better. I don't think they should let him off the hook, but I'd expect a lot of people lie in court and flashy penalties for Jones aren't going to change that, so there are questions here about consistency of outcome for people going to court. Given that his lawyers were in on it it is questionable whether he does actually understand the risks of his actions, he appears to be getting very bad quality legal support.
He could be go to court every day of his life, lie continuously, fight them every step of the way and it still wouldn't do a level of harm that justify some of the payouts. They are huge, numbers have been tossed around in the range of billions. The engineering value of an entire human life is only around the 10 million mark. And the courts agree with a lot of that because these are punitive damages, so it is very much a judgement call about what is appropriate. It doesn't look like the judges are doing a great job on that front. The punishments are too extreme; from the outside it looks like Jones targeting these people was the best thing that ever happened to them by a wide margin.
> The Jones lawyers argued that the discovery requests were for documents that don't exist, and that's why they were not produced.
And then they accidentally sent all of the non-existent documents to the plaintiffs, showing Jones had committed perjury. And then they forgot to claim it as privileged in a timely fashion. And then Jones got confronted with the lie in court. And then they got sanctioned for the fuckup. Oops.
>And then they accidentally sent all of the non-existent documents to the plaintiffs
That's not what these two linked articles say. The AP articles about this state that the improper conduct was about disclosure of information the plaintiffs had sent the Jones legal team. Nothing to do with discovery that was requested from Jones.
> During parts of his testimony stretching over two days in a Texas courtroom, Jones repeatedly told jurors that he does not use email and that he had searched the contents of his phone for messages pertaining to Sandy Hook after he was sued by several family members of the victims for falsely saying the shooting was a hoax.
> Jones said that his phone search, done during the discovery phase of the trial, did not turn up any relevant messages. Texas Judge Maya Guerra Gamble has already ruled in favor of Sandy Hook parents Neil Heslin and Scarlett Lewis by default, saying that Jones did not comply with the rules of discovery in the case.
Nevertheless, this one liner about this topic does not specify what the discovery requests were. If the request was about finding text messages regarding a specific topic, as the term "relevant" implies, then just because text messages from Jones exist (and were improperly disclosed), doesn't speak to whether or not those text messages were relevant in this context or not.
You seem to be completely uninformed about the case. Jones has repeatedly defied the court, hidden evidence, refused to comply. He spent years lying about the parents causing them to be harassed constantly. Ruining their already ruined lives. He caused these parents to have to move multiple times to get away from his insane listeners. All the while, privately, Jones knew he was wrong. We know this from his private communications that his own attorneys accidentally turned over. To this day, Jones continues to spout lies about the court and the judge after multiple court orders and contempts of court. No amount of money is enough to undo the damage Jones has done. But taking it all is at least a start. He is a sociopathic cancer and deserves to be in jail.
You’re welcome to try to get the laws against defamation repealed but until then there is a specific legal standard which was met in this case. If you think that’s unfair, perhaps start by asking yourself whether his lawyers made the same argument and why it failed.
My oldest is in 4th grade now, and the most relevant maths are from 2nd and 3rd grade. Basic division, multiplication, and fractions matters (3rd grade) - but so does adding and subtracting multi-digit numbers (2nd grade) because multiplication/division is now multiple digit (which is the actual, new, 4th grade material). Interestingly, she used almost no adding and subtracting in 3rd grade, to the point where the teacher supplemented required coursework to help stave off attrition, so you could actually get by 3rd grade while being terrible at adding and subtracting.
Her covid year was kinder. It made her cohort pretty bad at writing. But that seems to have largely worked itself out over the past 4 years.
It's not clear to me when these tests were taken, and that kinda matters - were they by people who were starting 4th grade, finishing 4th grade, or completed 4th grade?
It matters because it tells us what they missed due to COVID - if these 4th graders had 1st grade for COVID, I'm not sure if that would be a huge deal. The most relevant bits are also taught in kinder, and they cover adding and subtracting again in 2nd. But if their main COVID year was 2nd, I could see 4th being a huge problem, especially with the general lack of adding and subtracting in 3rd grade.
> My oldest is in 4th grade now, and the most relevant maths are from 2nd and 3rd grade. Basic division, multiplication, and fractions matters (3rd grade) - but so does adding and subtracting multi-digit numbers (2nd grade) because multiplication/division is now multiple digit (which is the actual, new, 4th grade material)
Are the standards really that low? AIUI in most developed countries w/ the significant exception of the U.S. (and to a lesser extent, other English speaking countries), 4th and 5th grade math are for teaching the earliest elements of pre-algebra. (Meaning that algebraic expressions are very much not used, but the style of reasoning is clearly intended as preparation for that). They may get a lot of practice with fractions or multiple-digit arithmetic, but the basic procedures are not new to them in 4th grade. It seems to me that the U.S. educational system is underserving these kids quite significantly by not catering to their potential and actual skills for mathematical reasoning, which while not fully developed (and very much tied to "concrete" skillsets, as opposed to a real capacity for abstraction) are still quite substantial.
You might double check that the way you number the grades is the same as the way the parent comment numbers them. For example, as I understand it, in the US most kindergarteners are 5 years old and most first graders are 6, while in NZ most first graders are 5 years old and most second graders are six. So to convert from US grades to NZ you add one because in the US kindergarten isn't given a number.
The US has a highly regional system, but as I understand it pre-algebra is taught starting around sixth grade (~11 year olds), which may line up a little closer to your expectations.
> The US has a highly regional system, but as I understand it pre-algebra is taught starting around sixth grade
In most advanced countries this would be the beginning of Junior High a.k.a. Middle School. By that time the students have been thoroughly introduced to pre-algebraic reasoning already, and are broadly getting practice in it (and being taught some more advanced notions around, e.g. exponents and powers, which are of course foundational for later teaching) as preparation for actual algebraic expressions to be introduced.
I can attest that in this US state, 6th graders are being taught those same concepts, at least at the local middle school. (systems of equations with single unknown, introducing multiple unknowns, powers, roots, types of numbers, irrationals, simple geometric problems using multiple shapes, pythagorean triples..)
Anecdotal data from Estonia: I just checked what's the level of maths we have for the 3rd grade (which here corresponds to 9-10 year olds):
(Google Translate):
* reads, writes, sorts and compares natural numbers 0–10,000;
* presents a number as the sum of units, tens, hundreds and thousands;
* reads and writes ordinal numbers;
* adds and subtracts numbers mentally within 100, and in writing within 10,000;
* knows the multiplication table (multiplies and divides by single-digit numbers mentally within 100);
* knows the names of the members and results of four arithmetic operations;
* finds the numerical value of a letter in equations by trial and error or by analogy;
* determines the correct order of operations in an expression (parentheses, multiplication/division, addition/subtraction).
So you have elements of pre-algebra but actual algebra will be covered only in the 4th/5th grade (10-12 yo).
There is a strong push in many districts to delay algebra until high school, since many students are ready for it much earlier but would get an advantage over students who aren’t ready for it. But ya, we are short changing our students while China mostly isn’t (at least in urban schools).
> 4th and 5th grade math are for teaching the earliest elements of pre-algebra
at one large public school district -- 80 elementary schools, middle schools and high schools -- almost half of 8th graders cannot do basic elementary school math problems.. (edit) official estimates are that about 13% of the students do not finish high school at all.. that is the local school district here in a crowded port city in California near San Francisco. also note that more than forty unique non-English languages are spoken at homes existing in this school district.. also a non-zero number of homes where serious drug abuse occurs.. things like that..
Even 40+ years ago algebra was not introduced until 8th grade (13-14 years old), and only the kids who passed a qualifying exam got that option—the rest took it in 9th grade.
My experience in India is that simultaneous linear equations were taught in the 7th standard (12 years of age). I looked it up and it is common https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beMAypc7ju4
I do not recall it being particularly difficult and most students were able to do this stuff. I'd say that by the end we had 100% success at this out of the 50 students or so in my class. Is this algebra in the US or is it the group theory stuff we studied later on. The group theory stuff was _much_ later (12th standard - 17+ years) and we didn't go too advanced. Mostly simple stuff like proving something is a group or Abelian, etc.
The syllabus I studied was the Tamil Nadu State Board, which is considered less rigorous than the Central Board, so I can only assume the kids elsewhere were studying more advanced stuff. But overall, that sort of timing hasn't hampered me or most of my classmates from then, so one must assume it's not too bad to study group theory that late.
> I do not recall it being particularly difficult and most students were able to do this stuff. I'd say that by the end we had 100% success at this out of the 50 students or so in my class. Is this algebra in the US or is it the group theory stuff we studied later on.
Your parent comment is talking about solving a single linear equation such as "5x + 2 = 1". That's where "algebra" begins in a US pre-university context.
In a university context, "algebra" does indeed refer to group theory, and the basic concept of manipulating a numeric variable goes by the more elevated name "college algebra".
Thank you for explaining. Hard to believe that 13 year olds could fail to do this, or at least formally manipulate the equation till they have a satisfactory answer. Something is wrong with pedagogy or the process of practice.
What's wrong with the pedagogy is the idea that no one should be taught any material until everybody is capable of learning that material. Variable manipulation can be easily learned by 4th graders. But it can't be learned by all 4th graders, so everyone has to wait.
Just in case you think I might be misleading you somehow, here's a cheat sheet product for a "college algebra" course; again, "college algebra" refers to the material that would normally be covered in or before high school, except that it's being covered in college. So the idea of this product is that current college students will buy it to help them understand what's going on in class, or to review for a test.
Many 4th graders would have genuine trouble grokking the notion that a variable (a "letter") may be used in an expression to stand for some arbitrary number. This is why it may be more sensible to reinforce quasi-algebraic reasoning at that age by indirect means, such as practice with non-trivial word problems and with e.g. computing expressions that involve a variety of operations w/ rules of precedence, parentheses etc.
Yeah I'm just saying that even at that time, algebra as a subject was high school or for the "advanced" 8th graders. Calling 4th/5th grade math topics "pre-algebra" would be a real stretch IMO.
I have a preschooler, it's been observed by the local preschools that kids need OT and other interventions at substantially higher rates in the covid cohort than in the non-covid cohort. We are likely to see an ongoing wave of kids experiencing some disruption due to the covid period.
For much of my child's formative infant year, people were screaming bloody murder if we wanted our infant to develop a sense of facial expression in strangers and in public. They were also hell bent on banning much of the social events that people might bring infants to that may help develop early socialization. You do not get a more neuroplastic year than the first one.
There was a lot of stuff going on where one has to wonder how much we disproportionately sacrificed the children for disproportionately the elderly. It still deeply bothers me what effect this could have had on my child.
Only time will vindicate this belief. If you said the same thing two years ago you would have been shouted down and labeled as a “bad person”.
It now is getting to the point where this topic can be discussed without it immediately devolving to attacks.
I agree with your take, humans are also very poor at making long term tradeoffs. Just look at the environment and global warming and what we are doing as a species to stop that.
You also have to consider how covid lockdowns further split class divides. Since we didn’t produce as many things for 3 years there are less things to go around which causes the price of things to go up, hence inflation. Those who belong to unions and have higher leverage (tech workers, MBAs, etc) can push for higher wages to keep up for inflation but those who do not have that leverage are left behind and become poorer.
Im a little bit worried about the reverberations of covid which are causing global instability, and possibly war. A second order effect of lockdowns and inflation is that it makes any government which was in power during lockdowns very unpopular, this has and will continue to lead to more dramatic leadership changes across the board which further reduces stability.
It caused a shitstorm for our family. The prices of houses went 3x in our area due to covid era ~0% interest rate policies, leading me to work so hard to try and keep up I had health issues and was working ~80 hours a week just to be able to buy 1/2 the house I could have before the great leaders printed their way through their policies. I finally managed to secure housing but only after working twice as hard and physically building the house myself one block at a time with completely undeveloped land (this was the only real estate not exploded into oblivion by mortgage bidders), something last done by common people circa the great depression.
The cure may have been worse than the disease. They basically carpet bombed anyone who started a family right at the time the pandemic broke out.
There is general discontent in the population, who would have expected that a CEO being assassinated would be the strongest point of unity for the American people maybe since 9-11.
As more average people get pushed to the margins it will accelerate change. People will realize that it isn’t about left vs right, or race, or creed. It is about class, and those in the higher class echelons don’t want you to know that.
IMO the real culprit there isn't "people screaming bloody murder," it's that because we have no social insurance for pandemic type events, lots of single parent working households, lots of two income working households, lots of one child households, etc., so kids could not get sufficient socialization at or near home despite getting lots of socialization at or near home being totally possible, especially if parents were able to organize a bubble pairing to another household with kids. Instead, kids screwed around on mobile devices at home by themselves while parents worked rather than engage with them.
Many societies covered their faces when outdoors all the time for practical reasons - to protect against the cold, the sun, dust, etc. Some for cultural or religious reasons.
Babies in as diverse of backgrounds as Alaskans to Arabians were raised for thousands of years with significant face-coverings donned before going outside as the norm.
Being worried about "facial expression in strangers in public" because people covered their mouths as a harm to your baby's development is... about 10 steps past absurd. This isn't even making mountain out of a mole hill, this is making a mountain out of a grain of sand.
And of course, compared to the risks of permanently-lowered IQ due to covid brain damage, or permanent lung damage or the various fatigue and other issues millions of people suffered from covid, the risk from the infection to a baby is literally millions of times worse.
This is an interesting strategy you've taken. You're basically setting a trap where you want me to specifically go after Alaskans or Arabians to prove my point.
I'm not taking the racist bait.
I have no reason to think it causes any more or less issues in Alaskans/Arabians a anyone else. The fact that Arabians or Alaskans did or didn't cover in public doesn't sway the outcome one way or another. There are all sorts of cultural factors that compound outcomes, and both mainstream America and Arabs have some that succeed with in spite of, others they succeed because of.
The northeast woods does not have a wet/dry seasonality the way fire country in the West does.
In the West, the wettest month (which is in winter) can have 6-10 inches of rain while the driest (which is in summer) has 0-0.5 inch.
In the northeast, the wettest month (which is in SUMMER), might be 3-5 inches. The driest (which is in WINTER) might be 2-3 inches, including snowfall.
The Northeast doesn't have a dry season, and I don't think anyone seriously thinks it's going to develop one. It just has occasional dry periods because precipitation is pretty chaotic, and is getting more chaotic due to climate change. When one of those happens there's some fire risk, like has just happened. "The Northeast is becoming fire country" is just unabashed scare mongering.
We got hit too. We adjusted mostly in our eating habits. Moved to zero eating out, more bulk buying, cheaper foods, etc. We're also much more discriminating on what activities we do for the kids.
I'm not gonna go all "woe is me" since we're doing fine, but as someone with a family of 5 the discretionary income basically went to zero the last 4 years.
Yes, I was going to come back to say basically all of this. We noticed that not only were we no longer saving money, but we weren't even living paycheck to paycheck and had to make all these sorts of changes and cuts to get off a very bad trajectory.
The problem is the US only really has traditions. We were hardly a democracy at our founding in the modern sense of the word and as such the guard rails are fairly weak. The electoral college wasn't established in some brilliant attempt to moderate the votes of states, it was so rich land owners could control who ran the country.
reply