This being primarily generated leads me to wonder: is there a good source, written by academics or professionals, for this information?
Although I am not interested in using LLMs for much of anything, the theory and implementation (where the implementation is not just use some prepackaged library code) in a comprehensive presentation is not something I’ve seen before.
This book (and the book author's blog) is the best source for learning LLM internals for someone just getting started. It's clear and well-written (by a human!) and goes into much more explanatory detail than this does: https://sebastianraschka.com/llms-from-scratch/
Your comment seems to imply that async/await should be or is in some setting not just sugar for promises. But, I am under the impression the async/await is (and always has been) sugar over explicit promises. Not just in JavaScript but in C#, where the sugar originates, as well.
Is there somewhere that async/await is implemented as a different concurrency mechanism?
If you are asking in the context of Idris 2.0 (the current version), ST is not really related.
However, if you mean ST in Idris 1.0, there is a definite correlation. The mechanism that ST used for enabling local mutations was very similar to the mechanism that the typestate pattern in Rust is using. ST was a framework for formalizing State Machines in dependent types which is the mechanism TFA is analyzing.
From a language design perspective I go back and forth on named params. I think the only conclusion I’ve reached is that I am not in favor of them being optional, but I think that is more a concern for implementation of the language and less about how it effects users.
How do you find the feature useful in this instance, I can’t quite picture how that works for typestate pattern functions.
I feel so seen right now. My partner complains about me closing apps on my phone consistently. I also have to hold myself back from defragging and continually cleaning up my storage drives.
I too am nearly certain that the positive benefits are approaching nil, but I still feel it should be helpful.
At least on iPhone, it basically doesn't do anything.
Apple aggressively kills all background apps automatically. the "open" apps in the switcher are almost always just screenshots of previously-open-but-now-closed apps. if it was recent, the latest app or two in the switcher might actually be open, but rarely more than that.
Despite this, many of my relatives have somehow learned this habit of opening the switcher and closing all apps when they are done with them.
Android has always been quite vigilant and is prompt to kill off any app at the MFA login screen while I am consulting the Oracle of Authenticator in another task. Thanks Android!
That being said, I dislike having 3 dozen apps open because I simply can’t quickly find and switch to the ones I’m using. So when I enter a new situation, I swipe all the way left, and Clear All apps, to start over with a tabula rasa.
The app I use is gone from the app store, but like Spotlight or the Windows Start Menu > type-to-search (before it got utterly shittified with web search/does it have AI now?), I have an Android app called App Search+ on the bottom left of my Android home screen.
Open it, and it opens a list of recently searched for apps. The focus is on the top search bar (and the keyboard has also popped up), and I can type to find any app I have installed.
iOS has never worked the way you are describing. It's easy to disprove your claim that the app is killed by just switching between different apps you have open. iOS keeps the apps open to make it fast to switch back to them.
The document is clear that the expectation from the developer is that you need to be ready for your app to be snapshotted and frozen/killed at any moment when it is not on the foreground.
Well, it closes the apps somewhat arbitrarily, but they definitely arent all open. If the most recent app is a resource-intensive game or something it will more aggressively close things. but you can have more open if they are all lightweight apps.
But the switcher shows every app ever opened and tries to pretend these apps aren't being closed.
Right now for instance, i just checked and as best i can tell, the last 3 were open. going back any further and i could tell the app had to reload. but i can scroll to the left back forever. the one on the furthest left i easily haven't opened for months
Being able to go back 3 already contradicts the claim that it was rare to be more than 2. It works the same as Android. Android kills apps based off of resource usage but keeps screenshots of them in the task switcher.
After digging through a recently passed relative’s hard drive (the computer barely functioned so I pulled it) and having to search through years of garbage that where never deleted to find the photos, Word documents, and WordPerfect documents my aunt ‘knew’ where stored there somewhere, this is not an insignificant gift to leave my family with.
I think this is a good argument for the Ticket, however, for the case where these three functions are generically useful, not just used in this specified order, I would write a specific function, just copy-paste of the bodies capturing the required ordering as an implementation detail.
Obviously if you are operating in a wide, concurrent async system then the Ticket and separate function calls is the better mechanism for the ordering.
I know this wasn’t the crux of your post, but do you find that you primarily look at types as puzzles in a majority of your code? I have a fundamentally different view and find other perspectives interesting when thinking about language design.
As a separate point, I think this is an excellent example of making invalid states unrepresentable.
I view types as "the thing that prevents programmers and agents alike from writing bad and incorrect code in the future". They're a way of encoding invariants that doesn't require the programmer to worry about accidentally breaking them (because breaking the invariant will cause a compiler error).
Types are not the only way to encode such invariants. tests (and to a smaller extend lints and agent hooks) are other such mechanisms.
On this beat, I think people really under-appreciate the value of tests that check the structure of code to verify some general property, instead of checking the behavior of particular code paths.
At work, we have an internal system where we use a specific type to pass certain information around. It is extremely easy to construct an (empty) instance of that type wherever it is needed, but that is almost always wrong, you actually have to do the work and figure out how to get a real instance from somewhere. To make matters worse, whether the instance is empty or not doesn't matter in development, but matters a lot in production.
Because agents are lazy, they tend to construct empty instances whenever they feel like it, and there was no immediate feedback mechanism that could tell them it was wrong. It's not something you can easily encode in a type for example. I therefore build one (imperfectly, based on ruff lints), but it solved the problem entirely.
If you were to design Ikea furniture, you'd make pieces that only fit in to the total configuration the correct way.
Types provide that same phenomenon in programming imo. At the end of the day we are shoveling and playing with bytes so we need to provide handles to these processes which make sure that we can't fit a "square peg into a round hole"
Has this become a ‘smell’? I tend to start my HN comments that are going be negative with versions of this, or my habitual “Genuine question, ..”; but if this is going to flag readers’ internal LLM-detector I will have to find some other way to indicate I’m actually interested in a dialogue (versus the shit posting that a more brief reply might signal).
I was talking with a junior at the office today about LLM output and mentioned em dashes, to which responded “oh, I thought that was just where formatting for hyphens was going, I guess I learned something from the AI writing instead of the other way around” and god, his acceptance of it was just deprrsssing.
Although I am not interested in using LLMs for much of anything, the theory and implementation (where the implementation is not just use some prepackaged library code) in a comprehensive presentation is not something I’ve seen before.
reply