It is not supposed that null is the bottom value in the universe of all the values that your program can recognize? Why people need to complicate it?, and yeah in that definition `null == null`, but a `null_pointer != null` because null pointer is at the bottom of all the possible pointer value, and null by itself is not a pointer. The same for (0,null), (false, null) and ("", null). null should only be equal to itself.
And lastly undefined != null, because undefined is related with structures indicating that a field was not defined when the structure was created
Arts need a story behind it to be relevant, art without drama and real struggles from an individual is not really worth the time, it's just souless and boring. These kinds of tools are good for memes, and that is.
Graph drawing tools are also very underwhelming, they work pretty good for small graphs until you have something like 500 nodes or more, then eventually their output becomes complete incompressible or very difficult to look at it, they miss the ability to automatically organize those graph in hierarchical structures and provide a nice interface to explore them, we are used that everything around us have some kind of hierarchy, I think that is the same kind of problem that will need to be solved in order to have a generic graph data type, also this kind of thing will need to be implemented at the compiler level where those graph generic algos will be adapted to the generated hierarchy of structures, and if you add a theorem prover that can check that certain subgraph will always have certain structures you can statically generated those procedures and for the other super graphs those methods will be generated dynamically at runtime.
So whoever solve the problem for generic graph drawing will have the ability or the insight to implement this too.
The universe, for me, without any doubt, is a simulation, I even believe that the the algorithms that would explain how the universe reached this level of complexity would be the same that explain intelligence, I think that we got all wrong believing that matter come before consciousness when, in reality, it is the other way around. And languages are a big part of all the equation, physics and space are all languages.
Why are being downvoted?, there have been crazy comment on this website, hyping to the max ChatGPT and how all the humans now are useless, I was just ignoring HN for the past weeks because it have been ridiculous
Why people will upload their code to GitHub (if they are working in some state-of-the-art tech) is beyond me, you will be easily replaced by microsoft and they will say that was a product generated by gpt, see what happened in Amazon store with the popular products
I am with you, but There are ways to mitigate that, one is to make a script that check the URL output for this particular case, another way is to instruct the bot to translate user input to queries and then check whether they can run or not. But yeah, using those bots without constant human supervision seem like a terrible practice
I am also in the process of learning cat theory, I don't have a cs background, but I ending working as full-stack developer because it was economically more rewarding, I will recommend to programmers to have a good understanding of set theory, binary relations and order theory (linear orders, partial orders, lattices), it gives you very powerful abstractions that allow you to write new algorithms about anything.
I have been using copilot for two months and I find it more annoying than useful, am the only one that feel like this?, I also used tabnine, and it gives a lot of syntax errors in rust, so I could barely use it for a week. I definitely can agree that copilot is better than tabnine, but I feel like writing code is the easy part of programming, and copilot doesn't offer a crazy help to justify the monthly payment and that my private code is uploaded to Microsoft servers. Not only that, but I find that my IDE suggestion are good enough most of the time.
It is possible to make a set that contains all the set except itself, operationally this pretty simple, I am working on creating a language programming based on set theory, so this will be an easy way to define some notion of universal set.
This make much more sense, so most time the cardinality which people refer is with respect to the set of natural numbers, but according to you, we can have this relation between any two sets. The problem is not make those things clear in the wording. Why not just called it "the cardinality order relation", and try it always like a binary relation, instead of a property that each set has in insolation.
If you are counting a set, you necessarily are creating a map between the item of the set you are counting and the natural numbers, this is basics, how come that you can say such statement about the sizes of power set of natural number and natural number?, from where the notion of the cardinality comes if not from counting, and counting implies a map to a natural number, so the set of natural number is bigger than its selves?
This feels really arbitrary to me, I am more found to think that exist two additional disjoint categories just unbounded and bounded, and we can have unbounded countable sets and bounded countable sets, and an order relation between the cardinalities of unbounded countable sets just don't exist, it doesn't make any logical sense. In which point you stop walking both sets to compare their size?