The linked wiki page lists the reasons. You can't just say these are not good reasons without saying why

Which one of them justifies the government putting you in prison for accessing the information?

“Protecting democracy” or something Orwellian like that

archive.is protects democracy and that's why it must be illegal to access?

Unironically, yes.

I mean that’s probably what they believe, the idea is to shape favored outcomes by denying their voters access to information.

That is not my experience. Sure, the background of .NET is windows, but in the last decade or so it opened up to other platforms, and so many shops prefer deploying their .NET based applications to linux for multitude of reasons. Along with this comes linux oriented culture. So windows culture is not tied to .NET per se, more so tied to certain shops I would say. Speaking from anecdotal experience, I have no numbers on this :)

what sets it apart from scheme/lisp?

on the surface probably:

* the syntax is more similar to block structured languages.

* different brackets are used in different contexts for different meanings.

* the default is infix operators.

internally:

* its not s-expressions

you can see more examples here: https://github.com/seanbutler/vo

i feel it probably has more in common with self/rebol than lisp.

Thanks for sharing. I'm going to give it a spin for a while. The downside is you cannot comment or vote on the external site so you are always juggling the two sites for that.

I have a browser extension that allows you to comment and vote as if it's HN.

https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/hckernews-helper/gm...

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/hcker-news/ https://hcker.news/notes/browser-extension

(Safari ext coming soon)

The extension itself follows the principle of least privilege. It doesn't even have access to the HN site cookie.

They didn't write a traditional proof, but a lean program, which can be used to validate proofs formally, using a computer. It's still up to humans to check wether the formalization is sensible, but the proof is correct.

Has Lean itself been proved?

I think pretty much every major mathematician has accepted that the ideas and implementation behind lean is solid.

Where did you find that it is based on sonnet? While I wouldn't be surprised, I'm curious if that is disclosed somewhere

It's mentioned a lot I'm discussions about what bob uses, but there has never been a concrete statement as far as I can tell.

I also never had battery issues with my fp4, except it sometimes starts draining really fast. Fix is too charge while phone is shutdown.

I'm not sure that your description of generalization coincides with the idea of modeling abstraction from TFA. Modeling abstraction is "about identifying what should leak and leveraging it". Generalization is about making something cover more cases. The technique to achieve these things can overlap of course, but the intention/goal is different.

> abstraction is "about identifying what should leak and leveraging it"

vs

> Abstraction hides unnecessary detail.

Sounds like these ways of describing abstraction are in agreement with one another to me.

If you hide what’s unnecessary you’re left only with the things you think should leak. And you think they should be left unhidden so that you can use them for something, so to leverage them.

Generalization is surely more than coverage? At least to me generalization is unveiling a principle or unifying lens that yields extended coverage, the principle being the meat. The coverage is the result of the unifying lens that makes previously different pieces look like cases of the "same" thing.

So it's kind of bottom-up/"data" driven as opposed to abstraction being more "engineered into" the system.

That is, to me abstraction is building things such that they look the same. Generalization is discovering things are almost the same if tweaked a little to look the same under a certain lens.

Does that make any sense? In this view I guess the generalizing lens can be become the basis for an abstraction. I would assume the loop is closed between the two somehow but I can't quite see it.

Not using AI to write production code doesn't mean you can't use AI proactively to find vulnerabilities.

Poster wants a "total ban", you can only deduce that means vulnerability management also.

Or you could read the proposal and deduce nothing.

It explicitly excludes security fixes.

Oh the hypocrisy...

Soccer has no fixed pitch size, only upper and lower bounds on the width and height where the size must fall into