> This equation might seem a little hard to solve, but at this point you might notice something funny: $equation$

> So, if F′(x)log⁡(x)=1,F′(x)log(x)=1, then

> Thus, our mystery function F(x)F(x) obeys F′(x)log⁡(x)=1.F′(x)log(x)=1. From here you deduce F′(x)=1/log⁡(x),F′(x)=1/log(x), so by integrating you get

But it does not seems that F needs to have that trait, just that 1 works in that instance. It's sufficient but not necessary. How can you tell that it is that simple solution which is the right one?

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Cheval#Palais_id%C3%...

Though it crunched most of the free quota, 47111 tokens, so I couldn't make multiple attempts.

Parents should at least be able to overwrite the age of their child, maybe selectively allow bypasses. My experience with a computer would have been completely different if I was blocked from half of the internet. Especially when I see which kind of content gets blocked.

> Explanation and Recommendations Regarding Usage for Plan-Supported Models

> Note: Peak hours are from 14:00 to 18:00 daily (UTC+8).

    |_: Company| false

> Facts, but the Europeans, tankies, and America haters here will never admit it.

When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

That sentence sounds weird to me. I can't really put my finger on why, maybe the combination of adverbs, or just the fact of writing the desire of scaling as a company so directly. It feels (to me) like openly claiming their selfish goals. Or maybe I am just misinterpreting and they are referring to the whole humanity as "We" (but knowing Broadcom and in a lesser extent OpenAI doings, I am not convinced).

They are not socialists by any mean. EU is on every front very neoliberal (way too much for my French taste), and it has been like that since its inception without real interruption.

I think that your conception of cleverness is too wide basically. It's true that, in my opinion, any new programming language today should stop people from C-style "cleverness". But there are languages where the clever programs are actually the pretty ones. For example, the borrow-checker in Rust encourages good code design (and yet it still can be better). And most importantly, algebraic types constitute a radical improvement over classic C-style code. You may think that they hide what's happening, as they have a hidden tag and could be built from C structs and C unions. But after thinking a lot about it, thinking about the tag is actually not thinking about the program's behavior. There is a difference between the program you want to write, and what needs to happen on the machine to compute it. I could probably write a lot about the solution I found to reconcile both opinions, but my project is a lot newer so I can't redirect you to anything yet. But I think that by wanting a more grounded language, you are maybe dismissing too many ideas that would actually encourage programs to be clear and transparent while still not doing anything automatically with magic (and at the same time, would dismiss incorrect programs, that C can express but that machines cannot execute).

Btw, I understand that I am probably not the target of your language, so I won't expand much further unless you want.

But that's not true based on what I can find anyway, https://app.23degrees.io/view/j4luMuv8fnpO2frL-bar-grouped-v...

In retrospect, I tend to think that this take was naive. It probably increased financial performance but it discouraged taking risks, and pushed the multidisciplinary skills out of companies in a way that is hard to reverse, inducing knowhow loss and probably slowed down innovation. But this is only my personal analysis and I am no economist.