There was some drama when someone forked it so you could write your own JavaScript wrappers/FFI too?

In fact, these weird string terms pop up pretty often, but surely you’d want to be using de Brujin indices lest you accidentally string match two different things (can’t believe I’m saying that for an implementation of a dependently typed language).

I started to wonder how your types were glued, as I would have thought Sigma types glued along identity equivalences would give me some insight on the odd behaviour.

`reduce_comp` seemed like the place it should be. There I realised your `CTGlue` case is wrong: it seems like `partial_pairs` is in the head but dropped from the body, so they’re never glued by any equivalence.

So much has to be pragmatised, carefully considered and made concrete categories anyway that much of the category theory exists in the documentation rather in the actual code.

Resources is one. Energy, water, cost. There seems to be diminishing returns in intelligence at the moment, whilst power and memory usage continues to go up.

More “X is simply not worth our time anymore”. I can’t say with any certainty that X is on a death spiral (personally it does feel that way), but the kind of crowd who have remained in spite of Musk’s many public embarrassments (and the handling of Grok deep fakes and women) probably aren’t the kind who are passionate about the EFF

“Man, these cryptographers didn’t know a thing about tailwind. Useless!”

> Start reading books or you're going to look stupid to the people around you

Wherein the prose wasn’t at all sloppy, the tautology was certainly intentional; the implied audience of “look stupid” could be to people entirely absent of the vicinity!

You have to be very, VERY careful. With how predisposed they are to helping, they’ll turn to “dishonesty” rather than just shut down and refuse. What I tend to see is they get backed into a corner, and they’ll do something like prove something different under the guise of another:

They’ll create long pattern matching chains as to create labyrinths of state machines.

They’ll keep naming functions, values and comments to seem plausible, but you have to follow these to make sure they are what they say. A sneaky little trick is to drop important parameters in functions, they appear in the call but not in the actual body.

They’ll do something like taking a Complex value, but only working with the real projection, rounding a number, creatively making negatives not appear by abs etc etc

So even when it compiles, you’ve got the burden of verifying everything is above board which is a pretty huge task.

And when it doesn’t work, introducing an error or two in formal proof systems often means you’re getting exponentially further away from solving your problem.

I’ve not seen a convincing use that tactics or goals in the proof assistant themselves don’t already provide

A decade plus ago, you could ssh into localhost on iOS, but that got nipped in the bud with sandboxing.