The most striking thing to me is that Ayer hopes there isn't life after death.
> My recent experiences have slightly weakened my conviction that my genuine death, which is due fairly soon, will be the end of me, though I continue to hope that it will be. (italics mine)
I do get the sense that many atheists not only reject God & the afterlife but actually don't want there to be a God or an afterlife. (I think Thomas Nagel wrote something along those lines.) I sort of get it but regardless I think it's very interesting.
Sure, but if the caller is Javascript then you're running Javascript, not Typescript*, so it makes sense that you're not going to get type safety.
I'm also not sure we're actually disagreeing on anything, so perhaps my reply was pointless. I agree that if you mix JS and TS in the way you describe, you'll have problems. My reply was just to say "yes, and that's not really Typescript's fault", but perhaps you weren't implying that to begin with.
* I'm aware that you can't run Typescript directly, but I hope my point here is clear... you're running a program that wasn't type-checked by TS.
Writing a Typescript program that takes external input but has no runtime error checking is already a mistake, though. Dealing with external input requires type assertions (since Typescript doesn't know what the program is getting at compile-time) and if you write type assertions without ensuring that the assertions are accurate, then that's on you, not Typescript.
However, if your point is that Typescript can lull people into a false sense of safety, then sure, I take your point. You have to understand where type assertions are coming into play, and if that's obscured then the type safety can be illusory. The benefits of Typescript require you to make sure that the runtime inputs to your program are sufficiently validated.
This might be a dumb question but are there any current or foreseeable practical applications of this kind of result (like in the realm of distributed computing) or is this just pure mathematics for its own sake?
> The solution was reached by using codebreaking software the team had developed along with extensive manual work, in part required because Perwich had mistakenly omitted a couple of letters in his ciphertext.
That explains how the team of 3 codebreakers got it, but what about the other codebreaker, Matthew Brown, who figured it out by himself? The article doesn't say anything about his approach. Seems impressive if he can match the effort of three cryptographers using their own custom software. I want to read more about him!
If you're looking for something real-time, I'd recommend checking out NASA's "Eyes on the Solar System" visualizer (not as comprehensive but still pretty cool):
I'm having trouble understanding the second diagram in the article. I can make sense of a directed graph, but this one has thin horizontal lines with arrows leaving them in both directions. These lines look like dividers, not nodes, so I'm not sure how to interpret it.
It looks like she's a science communicator rather than a scientist herself. That's interesting... I'm not used to seeing academic papers that include an author devoted entirely to the writing aspect. (Then again, maybe I just haven't noticed?)
> set theory is the foundation of all of mathematics
I disagree. I would say set theory is a foundation, not the foundation.
Which system is the "correct" foundation of mathematics? Does it even make sense to talk about correctness in this context? These are open questions and they're very interesting! Don't prematurely close yourself off to them by assuming that set theory's role is some kind of scientific fact.
But what if it's only faking the alignment faking? What about meta-deception?
This is a serious question. If it's possible for an A.I. to be "dishonest", then how do you know when it's being honest? There's a deep epistemological problem here.
"decisions which they don't understand to be compliant" = "decisions which they don't believe to be compliant"
In other words, they understand that the decisions are not compliant. There's no contradiction with what you said.