With Haskell perfection is not optional, but required. Otherwise one ends up deep into redundant abstract bullshit, unnecessary wrapping mess, which would be even worse than J2EE bullshit.
Another great example is brevity of speech of smart autistic people compared to verbal diarrhea of intelligence cosplaying imposers.
Dalai Lama speaks a few sentences at a time, but these are well though, have no redundancy no decoration and no long words to impress idiots.
This is precisely how Haskell code must be written - Just Right (the Buddha's principle) or the principle of Antoine de Saint-Exupéry: Perfection is achieved when there is nothing more to take away (which is implied in Buddha's Just Right).
The modern mantra for that is Data Dominates, which means that after finding the most appropriate (Just Right) data structures, the algorithms and the code (implementation) just follow.
For Haskell the mantra is Just Right Types, and everything else follows. It must be explicitly said - The most straightforward, down-to-earth types, such as Sequences, Trees, Tables (
Foldable, etc), NOT Free Monads and similar stuff.
Monads is just a convenient formal conceptual framework to enforce an abstraction barrier for a declarative (pure functional) language. No more, no less. Explicit order of evaluation is enforced by function call nesting, which is at the core of Monads (and Arrows) implementation.
Kleisli categories and stuff is just an abstract framework which provided an insight of how a barrier could be generalized.
The linguistic researchers of the past were much more systematic guys than modern rML imposers.
Most notably, the fathers of NLP (Neuro Linguistic Programming, a pseudo-science) realized that humans have at least two representations, in principle. One, so called Deep Structure (representation) is how our abstractions (maps of the world) are stored in a brain, and Surface Structure one, which is used for verbal communication, after verbalization (literally encoding) for a transmission.
What they did not realize, that this Deep Structure is not arbitrary (by no means) but reflects the constraints of the environment, of which everything, including a brain, is a product.
Genetically transmitted structure of a brain encodes environmental constraints.
This is not for visual or motor cortexes, but for speech areas too. It reflects, for example, that there are things, process, attributes, and events. Deep structure is not arbitrary, like they trying to make it with NNs, it is the opposite - the structure is highly optimized, and it mimics (maps) reality (environment).
This is precisely why (and how) a meaningful speech could be produced - it is just a verbalization of inner conceptual "maps" (represented as brain structures), which reflects what is real.
This is why children are producing meaningful phrases instead of infinite patterns of arbitrary noise, for example.
So, any model based on merely weight will never produce anything meaningful. Only almost indistinguishable from meaningful, which is even more dangerous.
Censorship is bad for many reasons, most notably it discourages freedom of expression, which is absolutely crucial part of communication.
All the harsh words, name-calling, etc, are creating required, necessary tension, which is fruitful in the long run, because it encourages people to become stronger. The way Navi seals gets trained, the way fraternity goes on in any college, etc, etc.
HN became a walled garden, safe space for *mediocrity*, with some "sheriffs" patrolling it. The community has been quickly degenerated into some sort of LinkedIn, full of imposers, cosplay of intelligence and commonplaceness.
Below are examples of comments for which I got banned so many times, and yet I refuse to follow any CoC or frame my emotional responses differently, because the emotions are crucial part of the message.
So, fuck off.
Philosophy used to be a systematic attempt to answer just one question - What Is? (or what is real?) Science emerged as a standard methodology much later.
Abstract bullshitting, which is mistakenly called philosophy too, may be considered as an art, like storytelling.
To clarify - fancy philosophical systems have nothing to do with philosophy. They are just piles of abstractions
Autism is inability to deal with ones own emotions due to some genetic mutations.
It is clearly and verifiable inherited and carried by pretty women who are less affected, being compensated by motherly instincts for social enpirements.
Women are traditionally more emotional and rely on feeling, so society (families) readily accept autistic women as long as they do their duties.
Physical beauty (mostly face) guarantee a marriage. This is how autistic traits are not washed out.
Each autistic person develop his own behavioural patterns to compensate being overwhelmed by his own emotions. (Depending on severity these patterns vary from Turing to Rainman so to speak). This is the main principle.
Everything else is just bullshit.
Oh, really. So applying probabilities to partially observable systems yields bullshit, and estimated probabilities based on observations of the past events does not predict anything for evolving systems? I got banned here for such assertions lmao.
What else is new?
Lol, it won't fly. First of all, science is just a methodology of establishing truth about some aspects of what we call reality. Everything which cannot be verified by a reproducible experiment is not a science. All theories, therefore, are mere theories. Analogue of religious sects. It also automatically disqualifies all humanities, and especially socially constructed bullshit like race theories, etc.
That, in turn, will strip high social status of academics and "people doing science" from way too many people (which is absolutely good, so it will never happen).
Science as a social construction took (along with big government) place of religion as prestigious occupation and the way to have a high social status.
A guy FUDed Cardano singlehandedly
This is a pretty bad writing compared to classic writers (Hudak, Hutton, Bird or Thompson). It begins with nix, which is a cancer (solving of non-existent problem by attention seeking narcissists - stable interfaces and semantic versioning will do).
Then it proceeds with a subpar code, which mixes styles without justification, is cryptic and unreadable. You don't have to zip and then unwords, case is cryptic and redundant, etc.
And it is not some rant, it is an adequate peer-review as it should be.
Simplification (reduction) to perfection (when there is nothing more to remove) both in abstraction and in code, is not optimal with Haskell.
Piling up of esoteric bullshit such as lenses and monad transformers is a non-goal.
Xmonad, cabal and, of course, GHC itself are still the gold standard. No bullshit dependencies.