I'm really pleased how wildly all the other commenters are misunderstanding this.

I was counting on this concept as competitive advantage.

But since the algorithm isn't going to surface me anyhow, for giggles I'll say I'm leaning more toward darcs than git.

This postulates that policy is set by consensus.

Now I haven't done any scientific polling, but my informal anecdotal experience is so overwhelmingly to the contrary that I'm comfortable believing that consensus isn't determining policy here.

> To build a theorem prover you need to take away some capability (namely, the ability to do general recursion - the base language must be total and can't be Turing complete), not add new capabilities. In Haskell everything can be "undefined" which means that you can prove everything (even things that are supposed to be false).

Despite what the fanatical constructivists (as opposed to the ones who simply think it's pragmatically nice) seem to want us to think, it turns out that you can prove interesting things with LEM (AKA call/cc) and classical logic.

How does this disagree with "the base language must be total and can't be Turing complete"

This is all of them, properly speaking.

Incidentally, this is pretty much what Algol 60 was designed for and why to this day many academic papers use it or a closely related pseudocode.

How much of Mythos’s internals will researchers be able to recover from the flood of patches?

I've felt for a long time that the field relies rather a bit too hard on absence of evidence being evidence of absence.

SillyMUD branches will always have a special place in my heart. Who doesn’t love leveling up in Sesame Street?!

That’s really not true for Lisp.

Ruby, like its predecessor Perl, is one of the finer examples of Greenspunning and shows a lot of Lisp influence.

Unfortunately I can’t read the actual submission right now due to the cloudflare outage.

OP here, you can read it here https://github.com/stonecharioteer/tech-blog/blob/main/conte...

> That’s really not true for Lisp.

It's completely true of lisp. Lisp strings are generally mutable (although literal strings may be interned and non-mutable, or even worse mutation of literal strings may be UB). Same for Smalltalk.

I meant more that symbols are a data structure with function and value slots. Last I knew strings, interned (which is also a Lisp reference) or not don't have that.

In a Lisp with mutable strings, like Common Lisp, those strings which are symbol names are still mutable.

This has been true in the USA since approximately 1965, at least. Analysis has shown the general public has absolutely no say in policy making; literally everything is for this or that influential “special interest.”

This is borne out in the erosion of what we now euphemistically call the middle class along basically every dimension that matters.

Some of the heat here is on account of members of this community are, or at least are used to being, special interests that have had a powerful voice in previous administrations and less of one in the current one. But let’s not pretend this is some sort of creeping fascism, it’s just a different faction of elites making their own plays.