We should teach the bulk of Lawvere theories only once. Students should get to know groups and rings as two flavors of a similar construction, and also be introduced to the mysterious fact that some objects, like fields, don't fit into the Lawvere-theory paradigm.
From WP: "Critical race theory (CRT) is a body of legal scholarship and an academic movement of US civil-rights scholars and activists who seek to critically examine the intersection of race and U.S. law and to challenge mainstream American liberal approaches to racial justice." It's legal theory, dumbass.
Whoa, you can't attack others like that here, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. Since you've been doing it repeatedly, and ignored our requests to stop, I've banned this account.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
It is well past the point of meaning what it's defined to mean. I have been hearing about it somehow showing up as a guiding principle in the design of middle school curricula, which does not involve teaching those kids any legal theories. It is what all words turn into when they are used too often: it is a buzzword.
Not sure if you are aware but this was a coordinated and planned tactic by right wing media. Specifically they targeted the term crt and decided to make it out to be the devil.
It’s a common tactic of Fox News and adjacent online outlets. Senators will join in as well. Anything to start a culture war. It’s coordinated and planned. I’m on mobile but I’d send you some evidence about it. I remember Hasan Piker showing some interesting information about it.
The sequences use terms like "intelligence", "smarter", and "cognition", purely to place themselves in what they conceive to be the scientific genre of philosophy.
I wonder why HN doesn't have anything to say about this. The closest we can get is to have a pseudonymous account offer a half-hearted congratulations. Surely HN appreciates efforts to undo Nazism and historical revisionism?
This is about as far from "popular kids make fun of nerds for being weird and nerdy" as you can get. It's more like two different groups of nerds having a nerd-fight about which kind of nerd is the better kind.
Declarative languages are characterised by having the programmer specify _what they want_ but not _how to get it_ (i.e to get a sorted list, you would specify that the elements are in increasing order, but not the specific algorithm to use). In contrast, functional languages are characterised by treating functions as first class values (amongst other things, but these are harder to summarise).
Prolog for example is a declarative language, Haskell is a functional language.
Someone can correct me on this, but I've never seen this distinction you're making anywhere else. And, it doesn't make sense to me either. The wikipedia page[0] for FP says that FP is a "declarative programming paradigm". Can you give me an examplel of a "functional" piece of code that is "not declarative"?
Prolog is a declarative language but not a functional language. Hence functional languages and declarative languages are not equivalent. Functional languages are not just defined by lacking side effects but also by using functions as first class citizens, meaning that SQL isn't a functional language either.
Python and Scheme are the two classic examples of non-declarative functional languages; they are both instructing low-level VMs to mutate machine state, but also both have functional-programming tools and first-class functions. The Scheme (set!) form is a great example of imperative mutation within a functional paradigm.
I wish that philosophers had to take science classes. It is completely unimpressive to announce a theory for consciousness without having experimentally tested it, and Nautilus should not have run such a self-congratulatory article without experimental evidence.
