effectfully

@Longsword44 thanks queen

No one is frowned upon more than a sensitive old man. No one.

@HSVSphere Keep talking like that and I'll bump your orientation from gay to bi.

You'd think people working in the worst parts of tech would love it if something changed but they don't. They're too used to it and if something made their efforts irrelevant they'd have no purpose left. You can see this in C luddites vs people writing Haskell, Haskell by itself is already good but the people working in it would love to change it (see: 8234239084 language extensions). C is terrible and is one of the main reasons why our software sucks, yet people love it and love creating their own hacks in every new repo. Sure bro, go ahead and write your own string again.

One thing that's interesting is everyone in tech hates change, especially people in areas that suck. They'd rather continue dealing with the garbage than fix fundamental issues, just because that's what they're used to. And they will attack you if you try to change fundamentals.

@wordgrammer @interruptdisdik Ok fine I subscribed.

@interruptdisdik Yah I'll put them on my substack. They're all 1,000 words or more. I think every <240 character idea has already been said.

I definitely have at least 3 ideas that I'm the only person on earth to believe or articulate

@wordgrammer Provide the list please. I can't think of anything like that.

@hmemcpy lmao

@zuhaitz_dev @sixsevanie I give you consent on his behalf.

I do not give consent

@Longsword44 Handles of the other two? It was just one subpar tweet by Edel. He's a poet.

@swordgunlimited @Edelweissrturns You're tearing me apart, Your Divine Grace.

@effectfully @Edelweissrturns I’d pay your village in Montenegro a visit to let you confirm but I really can’t make time to hear about ‘Haskell’, I’m sorry

There's only two genders: - a woman-worshipping promiscuous poetic Nazi (reference @Edelweissrturns) - a man-degrading Roman goddess of nurturing control freakery (reference @swordgunlimited) Everything else is a deviation.

@HSVSphere I'm so sorry your own mother has given up on you because of your profound homosexuality and now you're looking for a replacement.

George is right. Eventually, the AI running on my phone will help me kidnap @effectfully's mother.

@roboguy20 Ah well, stop is wrong for multiple sublists too, ok I'll think how to replace it.

@roboguy20 particularly because there's no two non-empty xss1 and xss2 such that appending them together will give you a single-element list, so that edge may in fact be fine. Whatever, I was supposed to be somewhere instead of working through this...

Here's an interesting math puzzle I recently saw from McBride (slightly reframed): Take some arbitrary set (or type) X, and consider lists of lists of X elements ("lilists"). We can take one of these and flatten it into a list of X elements. Next we define a relation `<->`, where two lilists `xss` and `yss` are related if and only if they have the same flattening (which we write as `xss <-> yss`). For example, maybe X is the set of integers and we have `[[1], [2,3], [4]] <-> [[1, 2], [3, 4]]` because the two lists have the same flattening. We can also take our list append operation (`++`) and "lift" it onto the relation: if `xss1 <-> xss2` and `yss1 <-> yss2`, then `(xss1 ++ xss2) <-> (yss1 ++ yss2)`. We'll say that the relationship `xss <-> yss` is "reducible" if we can "rewrite" it in that append form. Specifically, it's reducible if there is some `xss1`, `xss2`, `yss1`, `yss2` with `xss1 ++ xss2 = xss` and `yss1 ++ yss2 = yss` where `(xss1 ++ xss2) <-> (yss1 ++ yss2)`. For instance, the example I gave originally is *not* reducible. But, on the other hand, `[[1, 2], [3, 4, 5], [10], [100]] <-> [[1], [2, 3], [], [4, 5], [10, 100]]` is reducible. **Now the question**: What's a "nice" way to characterize the irreducible relationships (ones which cannot be split like that)? Like some sort of criteria for that. The definition itself doesn't work so well for that because it doesn't, on its own, give us a way to see whether or not something is reducible.

@analytichegel @roboguy20 That's not nice right away though, because "not reducible" isn't nice vs some direct "irreducible".

@roboguy20 We could think of lilists as lists of X + 1 (where 1 signals the end of a list and the beginning of a new one). If two of these share a 1 at the same place (and they are the same with the 1s removed) the things are reducible.

@HSVSphere @Clipart_Bear @theo brother you'll never find a boyfriend with those flirting skills

@effectfully @Clipart_Bear @theo You've left me with no choice other than doing bad things to you in the process

i'm a virtual street cleaner living in a digital ghetto

@HSVSphere @Clipart_Bear @theo an HIV-infested radioactive rat has better better sperm quality than you rainbow boy

@effectfully @Clipart_Bear @theo Raise another you but with half of my (better) genes than your dad's

@HSVSphere @Clipart_Bear @theo what would you need out of a person who managed to raise a me?

@Clipart_Bear @theo would you write a check to me to fund the kidnapping of @effectfully's mother?

@typememetics this is hilarious