I've wanted many things from shell but never to write Haskell in Shell. This turned something relatively naturally expressible into something so complex that requires type theory
There is no reason why one has to enjoy a haskell-like syntax over Bourne shell syntax but I think you're wrong about the tool. The author states that "It should have no abstraction capabilities (classes, data types, polymorphic functions, etc.)." Granted, there may be types but without those abstractions, I don't think you need to know much of anything about type theory.
Funny, I just learned this this week too and had it generate an ics file from an excel file. Then I realized there might be bugs, so I asked it to write program instead.
This is very cool. I've been waiting for something like this for a while. Since it's so new, are you allowing any hackability like ReMarkable? I'd like to use it instead of Amazon Scribe and integrate against it but $729 is bit steep if it relies on an external service or something.
Oh, since it's Android under the hood, I see that kindle just works?
I think this makes sense for Apple to also provide the cloud capabilities similar to NVIDIA DGX so that any AI models that are targeted to Apple chips can run scaled up in data centers but Apple owns the front end for it as well as any ongoing optimizations
I agree. This would’ve likely saved me a lot of time that was spent on trial and error but now it’s not new. But this is great reference to forward to new folks getting started.
Don't do this. I see these names as just obvious ways to describe what things do like variables. I wouldn't want to be reading code like
```
beeblebrox = zaphod + trillian
```
similarly names of services in architecture diagram shouldn't be undecipherable (outside of perhaps ultra secret projects -- then maybe those agencies should have a name generator :) ). The cute names even if based on some theme get very old and the cultural context almost always gets lost once the company/team outgrows. Also it's a much easier to refactor away a new service if lets say you find yourself adding a completely unrelated feature to a service named "accounting" or something boring,whereas if you named it "hades" or something cutesy, you don't have any indicator whether the feature has outgrown. I've found it much easier to deprecate/sunset services and systems when they're obviously named too.
One exception I'd say is when nicknames just arise and it becomes obvious to call it that. It's very rare and it happens. Borg at google is perhaps a good example here. It's so all encompassing that it's obvious what it means and calling it another name like "container orchestrator" or something similar perhaps doesn't have same gravitas. I think Microsoft had something called Autopilot which is even clearer but not it can be applied to many things.
I was wondering why this sounded familiar and it's from 2011. Here are various things that have been invented along the same lines as Bret mentions.
* https://dynamicland.org/ - Bret Victor's vision, looks really cool
* Kinect was released (November 4, 2010) a little before this article and presented another vision of future, but the market didn't think so
* Oculus now detects hands and I'm pretty hopeful this will add more gestures and similar gait detection will be huge for interfaces
All in all, the incremental changes are starting to look more like what Bret is suggesting rather than purely "pane of glass"
Unfortunately I think Dynamicland is dead. The physical space in Oakland doesn’t exist anymore. It sounds like only Bret Victor and maybe one other person are left and Victor is relocating to a university Biology lab to try to implement his ideas there.
One thing which comes to mind is that Dynamicland is a strange laboratory. It was a space in Oakland that is no more, but it's a physical environment where the primary activity being undertaken was creating this very unusual computing system.
…
And in fact, that's exactly what the principal investigator is doing right now. He's picking up and relocating the work to very interesting synthetic biology lab, where maybe now that the further development of the system will happen in a way that's meant to support this professor's research.
1) Bret brought the computer into the world, instead of bringing the world into the computer, e.g. Oculus or Vive.
2) The operating system that senses the world and reads instructions from objects is influenced by Smalltalk, and from what I understand allows for Smalltalk like programs to run on it in the form of object instructions and interactions.
> Kinect was released (November 4, 2010) a little before this article and presented another vision of future, but the market didn't think so
The Kinect has pretty much dried up for video games, but the company that developed the first version of the Kinect for Microsoft was later purchased by Apple, and their technology underpins the FaceID tech that appears in every iOS device these days.
(Apple has also had rear-facing Lidar on their iPads & iPhones for a few years now, and I believe that it is also an evolution of the Kinect tech, but I don't know for sure.)
I am disappointed that it withered away for video games, since it was really interesting & fun technology.
According to the most recent SEC filing I can find with an explicit ownership percentage, "As of June 30, 2019, external investors held 17.1% of the fully diluted equity in GM Cruise Holdings." [1] Presumably that means GM as the parent company owned 82.9%.
Hah wow, this makes me doubt the person really understands bitcoin. The puzzle is a mathematical thing, AFAIK nobody’s poring over mysterious message drops from Satoshi like people do for Q. The article doesn’t mention Ethereum or heck even ESG concerns. I’d buy the argument that it’s a cult much like Communism is a cult, an idea taken to the extreme that’d cause lot of pain but the way it is written is sloppy.
>Though its lack of a single leading figure and its amorphous online footprint marks it out from traditional cults, some say the cryptocurrency movement bears a striking resemblance to another progeny of the digital age: the QAnon super-conspiracy.
> “Both have doctrine passed down by a mysterious unknown founder, puzzle-solving, and internet meme culture and lots of predictions about politics/economics that are completely unfalsifiable,” says Diehl. “They’re both rooted in this ideology that claims to oppose a common enemy: corruption and untrustworthy intermediaries, and both see the internet as the way to finally eradicate those problems in some great apocalyptic event.”
