Agda has the most wonderful (terrifying?) operator syntax I know of. Any Unicode (except for a few reserved words) can be used, and you can indicate where operandi go with an underscore. For instance defining a function named _•_ would allow you to use a • b.
But there is no limit to where the underscores go: the name _? Would give you x ? postfix. To define if-statements one defines the name if_then_else_.
I am a mathematician, and I agree with you here. I do not feel at all threatened by LLMs, because for me the joy of mathematics is in constructing the theories and beholding their beauty! I know other people are different from me here. I find having to prove theorems a rewarding part of the whole, but I am also not going to weep if an LLM can unstuck me on difficult proofs.
I am really excited if LLMs means more of mathematics will be formalised. Once we have all of mathematics formalised, I think we will start to see real great progress!
WoW and Runescape exist. But MUDs exist too, and text and graphics have different possibilities. So it makes sense to have some of both in this rich world.
Indeed, text and graphics are different styles and there are pro's and con's to either one. Similar to how some people enjoy ps1 style games over "modern graphics". One of the major pro's for text based games is accessibility.
It's in a way comparable to the difference between a novel and a movie or a novel and a comic/manga.
Really before the term MMO was coined these type of games where called "graphical MUDs"
Also Runescape started as "DeviousMUD".
Neverwinter, Runescape, Tibia, Ultima online, Everquest and more all formed from MUD lineage.
Now that LLMs can do the actual configuration, I started using NixOS and now all my config lives in one repo, and every quality of life improvement fans out to every machine without issue.
Since Claude (code) knows all about my system, it will also tailor solutions to it when I ask how to do something. Using it I can often find really neat solutions to whatever sys admin task I can imagine.
I feel like there is a lot of interesting things one can do in proof engineering without resorting to "tactics" (meta-programs searching for the proof). In some cases one can replace them by robust lemmas which show general results. Or the language could have good support for abstractions (dependent types already give us a lot of power here!).
Personally, I am experimenting a lot with Agda's instance arguments these days. They somehow have a bad rep for being slow, but their performance has improved a lot! One can juice it to write really readable code (Like truly ad-hoc polymorphic operators, or declaring axioms used in a theorem like `⦃ AC ⦄ → Theorem`), but it also allows for proof searches. Contrary to “tactics”, instance arguments feel like a fluid part of the proof language.
I think there is a lot of room for innovation in the space of proof engineering. I really hope that LLMs will not suck all the oxygen out of the room, by being trained on existing dogmas.
Or maybe the USians need to talk more about human rights, as opposed to just Amrican right? And maybe discuss other ethical and political issues in a rational way too. And less like everything is a fotball match with us agains them?
Yes, in the middle of a bunch of design work on my library. Sigh…
Fable was really a step ahead of Opus on this kind of work. I guess I will be looking at Codex unless Fable is included in my Max subscription on Claude code – or the next Opus is a clear improvement (and comes out soon).
Fable was doing really well for me too, and I had scoped out a nice development plan that was going to come in on-time under token budget before the 7/19 cutoff, which just became the 7/17 cutoff right in the middle of a database schema update / migration.
Less common mayhaps, but some of my more blissful moments are when I sit down in the couch, load up one of my favourite albums, close my eyes and go on a musical journey!
What I listen to is definitely not interchangeable. And contrary to TV series, there is no limit to how much I can enjoy it!
I don’t think political ads should be legal. Political information should be freely available to all, including children. But in no way should we be bombarded with the manipulation from whatever political entities have the most cash at hand.
That’s a different claim then, you’re against political ads as a whole, not based on age. The fact that your teenager is 17 doesn’t feel relevant for your position
But there is no limit to where the underscores go: the name _? Would give you x ? postfix. To define if-statements one defines the name if_then_else_.
reply