> Now this might seem like a hack, but it really is not. Most languages would either ask the programmers to explicitly call free() or implicitly call a magic runtime.deallocate() within a complex garbage collector.
The compiler actually implicitly adds drop glue to all dropped variables!
Lots of ambitious people in a certain laboratory at a research Institute needed money. Some convicted sex offender gave them money. Why should they refuse?
I feel like the difference is that Vale actively destroys forests, and Salgado wanted to rebuild a forest, the damage and the good are related. Epstein and Media Lab don't share that same relation.
Indeed. My research (in statistics) is primarily methodological: I invent and describe methods that might be useful, and on a good day prove some theoretical results demonstrating that they might be useful. There's nothing to replicate there.
Citations can be a useful metric here, particularly if you can identify citations of people actually using the method (as opposed to people just mentioning it in passing, or other methodological researchers comparing their own methods to it).
Well, I'm talking about a math paper. So to me, it's the same as a code review. Someone has to go over the logic and proofs, and double check no mistakes are made.
The number of people who did and gave their approval would be a good indicator I can trust the paper.
What does a citation do that's better then this?
For experiments, or non math papers, you might need something more robust. I think mostly because reviewing the paper isn't really reviewing the full study, but only what the researcher put in the paper. So it is very hard to review methodology and details to be sure they followed proper protocols, etc. You'd need someone to have been reviewing the study as it is happening, and not just the output paper from it.
A citation indicates that other people actually care about the content of the paper.
Consider Researcher A, who has one paper with a hundred citations, and Researcher B, who has ten papers with two citations each. Probably Researcher A has made a larger contribution.
Whether you're in math or any other field, the fact that a paper is correct or reasonable enough to make it past peer review doesn't mean anybody gives a shit about it.
The issue with leftpad was that it was a transitive dependency that was yanked and broke everyone depending on it. Gists don't have any dependencies, their encapsulated within the Gist where all code is easily inspectable and publicly verifiable, maintained by a verified GitHub User and all changes have a public audit trail.
Yes the sandbox is the difference between Desktop Apps and Web Apps, which is the point, Desktop Apps can do things Web Apps can't do and when you're running a Desktop App you're trusting the publisher just like you are with every other process running on your System.
I don't have the full answer (and I would love if someone more knowledgeable could jump in this thread) but I'd say it depends since there are a few antagonistic effects :
- goroutines are (unless it changed since last time I used it) cooperatively scheduled. It's cheaper than preemptive scheduling, but it can lead to big inefficiencies on some workload of you're not careful enough (tight loops can hold a (Linux) thread for a long time and prevent any other goroutines from running on this thread).
- goroutines start with a really small (a few kB) stack which needs to be copied to be grown. If you end up with a stack as big as a native stack, you'd have done a lot of copies in the process, that wouldn't have been necessary if the stack was allocated upfront.
> Otherwise it's impossible to answer questions like: "If the Lagrangian formulation put space and time on equal footing, and if the Hamiltonian formulation gives a preferred role to time (generating time evolution), could we give a similarly preferred role to space?" "More generally, why isn't there a third or forth major formulation of mechanics?"
Hey, can you answer those questions? Or point to the right answers. Thanks!
I'm mostly unable. It was musing about these questions that got me interested in really understanding the Legendre transform.
I can say that dynamical equations that try to generate spatial translation from initial data on a time-like slice, rather than time translation from a space-like slice like Hamiltonian dynamics, are doomed because there is no well-posed initial-value problem (except in certain special cases involving massless particles), e.g., you generically cannot infer what's far from a spatial plane even if you know everything that happens on that plane for all time. Related topics:
Also, I would say that the fact that the Legendre transform is a manifest involution gives (quite) weak evidence that there are no other major formulations to find. Of course, it's possible to use a hybrid strategy, Routhian mechanics, with Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formulations on different degrees of freedom:
