FnOnce

FnMut

Fn

Obligatory mention of that iconic low-angle shot of The Mother floating gracefully across the plains. One of the best of all time.

[1] https://github.com/Speykious/cve-rs

Novig is rebuilding sports betting from first principles as a prediction market exchange. Legacy sportsbooks are extractive middlemen with misaligned incentives, dark patterns, and predatory mechanics. We're creating the alternative: a transparent exchange where users trade against each other at fair odds.

We're building core infrastructure around order routing, risk management, data pipelines, low-latency networking, and market integrity at scale. We write Rust extensively. We believe correctness, performance, and expressive code are necessities rather than luxuries. Ideal candidates care deeply about infrastructure, security, and performance. It certainly won't hurt to also care about prediction markets, traditional markets, or well-designed distributed systems.

Tech stack: Rust, Node, PostgreSQL, Kafka, Linux, distributed systems.

jobs@novig.co | https://job-boards.greenhouse.io/novig/jobs/4588745006

I too, eventually gave up on React <> WASM <> Rust but I was able to port all my existing React over into Leptos in a few hours.

I look forward to what tomorrow brings.

Start from 0 if you are counting boundaries (fenceposts, memory addresses)

Start from 1 if you are counting spaces (pages in a book, ordinals)

Floors are a case where both make intuitive sense, which is maybe how we ended up with European vs American floor numbering.

The former is the boundary, the latter is the interior + boundary. One of the great arbitrary naming conventions of math.

One of the harder generalizations to develop intuition for is the fact that the measure of a d-sphere tends to 0 as d approaches infinity, even though for all d = 0, 1, 2, 3 that our meager brains can visualize, the opposite is true! Geometry goes crazy.

That said, I'm curious if/when/why/how anyone uses Pin outside of a custom Future implementation?

I've actually been working slowly on https://github.com/krukah/robopoker, an open-source Rust implementation of Pluribus, the SOTA poker AI. What I've found interesting is the difference in how I approach actually playing poker versus how I approach building a solver. Playing the game naturally consists of reasoning about narratives and incorporating information like hand history, play style, live tells. Whereas solving the game is about evaluating tradeoffs between the guarantees of imperfect-information game theory and the constraints of Texas Hold'em, finding a balance between abstract and concrete reasoning.

- generate short blocks of low-entropy code (save some keystrokes)

- get me off the ground when using a new library (save some time combing through documentation)

The future of online play will be catered more toward teaching, solving, and tracking hands, rather than playing competitively for profit. I recently started a side project in Rust to do just that, mainly for love of the game and desire to learn the language.

Hoping to release later this year and perhaps productize if it gains traction.

Interesting (and I think very reasonable) first-order assumption. Maybe to second-order, the calculation could assume the braking force is proportional to velocity, which I think is roughly true of friction generally, but is also harder to model.

Let's take momentum, energy, and charge, things that you probably have a strong "real world feel" for. It's worth noting that our intuition for these quantities is actually pretty far-removed from their mathematical origin. Maybe you consider these as different loosely related quantities that pop up in different loosely related calculations, which is a useful and powerful mental model. Momentum is a thing that..."gives velocity to inertial bodies". Energy is a thing...that "does work". Charge is a thing that..."causes forces in the presence of an electric field". If you try to define the terms within each definition, you'll find yourself in some circular definitions, and it'll become unclear which definition, if any, is "most fundamental".

But these quantities are actually quite similar in the sense that they can all be defined in terms of action! Specifically, these are quantities that are conserved because there exists some nice symmetries in the Lagrangian (roughly speaking, a derivative of action). So our intuitive definitions of these things are really just less generalized/more specific understanding of structure that is emergent from action.

Can we look at a physical system and say "oh this one's got a lot of action" or "nature's doing a great job of minimizing the action over here"? No, but we can look at a physical system and say "wow, everything that's happening in here lines up with what I'd observe if this little quantity I defined just so happened to be minimized"

I think no matter how many Lagrangians we integrate or variational calculations we perform, we'll probably never gain a better intuition for action beyond "The Thing That Explains A Lot Of Seemingly Unrelated Physics When It's Minimized." To me, it's both deeply unsatisfying for its abstract and unintuitive nature, but also deeply profound for its universal explanatory power.

tldr; when it comes to action, reject real world feels and embrace mathematical structure.

It really feels to me as if the distinctions between countable vs uncountable; rational vs irrational; discrete vs continuous; all represent the boundary between physics and mathematics – an idea I wish I could elaborate more precisely, but for me stands only on a shred of intuition.

I've been interested lately in Stephen Wolfram's and Scott Aaronson's writings on related ideas.

Aaronson on Gödel, Turing, and Friends: https://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec3.html

Wolfram on computational irreducibility and equivalence: https://www.wolframscience.com/nks/chap-12--the-principle-of...