And try mixtral on chat.groq.com

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6238787

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

Amazing Fact (TM): I've been throwing right-handed for my whole life. Make me throw lefty and I throw like a girl. Something to do with an urgent need to get base runners out.

Another Amazing Fact (TM): If you play catch with an Aussie, notice their motion will be more overhanded than yours, if you are a Yank.

It's nurture not nature here. Go get a softball and try to fast pitch. I bet there's a girl nearby that could beat you.

Let's take some highly desirable attributes in an employee and give them a label "Rockstar". Er, no. "Founder".

When words are the currency of persuasion, expect inflation.

Here's what happens in the middle of a big Haskell project.

1) Take some existing code.

2) Refactor (Add a feature, change a record element, etc.)

3) Run ghc, then fix all the errors it reports. Repeat this step as needed.

4) Done.

What would be different in python? For one, no compile errors means very little. How many test cases would you need? How would you find all the places the code must change?

Lesson: A tough, smart compiler can be the programmer's best friend.

Meta-lesson: There is little need to discuss laziness, purity or static typing to "sell" Haskell. They are enablers of ghc. What you need is a big, complicated code base and an urgent need to make changes to it. You won't have that until you get your feet wet.

Is Haskell perfect? No, but I'll save that for an OP that is overhyping the language.

What technology does is send some the prices of some actions from infinity to nearly zero. Meanwhile humans remain pretty much unchanged.

Ever notice how little policy is actually discussed even when a supposed policy wonk (e.g. Clinton, Ryan) are giving the speech?

You are not exactly going to negotiate at moments like these.

Instead of "Capitalism is...beautiful" ideology it would be worth focussing on when it works and when it doesn't. Seems that there is strong evidence that capitalism harness human nature, property rights, and incentives to enable production. That's great. There is a lot less discussion about what it takes for markets to allocate resources efficiently. Two of the bigger prerequisites are "no externalities" and "symmetric information". Capitalism has no built-in mechanism to establish these conditions. A lot of our problems today go right to those factors. We could do something about it if our politicians would stop playing to the cheap seats. Sorry capitalism, you're ok but not that beautiful.

A year later, the judge retired and published his memoir. A big surprise awaited. He had begun his career as an ACLU lawyer in the 60s but wound up with a tough reputation among the defense bar.

An even bigger surprise awaited me. He devoted a chapter to explaining how hopeless the jury system is. To illustrate, he told the story of a murder case. My murder case. I read, "Never was a defendant more plainly guilty". I agreed, with some relief, but was confused. Why this case?

Turns out my trial was the second trial. At the first, some of the female jurors refused to convict. The defendant was "too good looking to have committed the crime", in their opinion. Mistrial. Then I recalled how, in our later trial, two female jurors wanted to find a way to justify a manslaughter conviction for what was clearly deliberate murder. They felt sorry for the handsome young defendant.

You be the judge (or jury), but if I had not lived it, I would not have believed this could happen.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4420132

Points: 1

# Comments: 0