In both Gluon and Haskell, functions without arguments can be represented as functions over the unit type:
f: () -> SomeType
which can be called via:
f ()
There are examples of this in the Gluon book (http://gluon-lang.org/book/syntax-and-semantics.html). There are no syntax-related difficulties at all here. This is also how it's done in OCaml and related languages.
(Note: This is (basically) useless in Haskell, since laziness makes this have the same semantics as a constant:
f :: SomeType
But since Gluon is strict, there's a pretty important difference between the two.)
Just because a piece of culture isn't exactly to your particular taste doesn't mean it shouldn't be preserved and it should be impossible for anyone to experience it in the future. And besides, that's a really selective and disingenuous generalization of Flash. There are a huge number of important, interesting Flash games that are worth preserving for history's sake.
Not really. FPGAs are fundamentally digital and pretty much give you a bunch of logic gates to work with ("Field-Programmable Gate Array"). The author's proposed architecture would instead provide an array of components that perform analog operations, such as summing, multiplication, and integration or differentiation, over analog voltages.
FPGAs are fundamentally analog, depending on if 'fundamental' means what was in the designer's head or what you actually fabricated. You are thinking about them and using them as if they were digital.
Adrian Thompson at Sussex University used a genetic algorithm to auto-design FPGA circuits in the early 90s. Since no one told the GA that FPGAs were supposed to be logic circuits, it happily used the FPGA as an analog machine.
Even an Intel i7 chip is an analog machine that approximately implements the i7 computer design. They throw away the ones that don't approximate it up to tolerance.
Obviously. But good luck implementing a human-comprehensible analog differential equation solver on one, without the help of a genetic algorithm, that doesn't depend (as Adrian Thompson's circuit did) on the temperature, the quirks of that specific board, and the effect of components which aren't even physically wired to it.
The difference isn't that FPGAs don't operate on analog voltages deep down (who said they don't?). The difference is in the set of tools and tolerances they give you, and in that sense FPGAs are only an analog coprocessor in the sense that a car can, technically, be used as a sailboat.
I think it is an interesting reminder that the world we live in is wholly analog, and while this includes systems with discrete sets of equilibrium states, using digital devices to perform analog functions looks like hacking rather than as something that one would normally be advised to do. The reason for that is that while such devices may all behave as designed, identically, in the digital domain, their analog characteristics may vary so wildly between versions and even different specimens, as well as with, say, temperature, and do it in a completely unspecified way, that any attempt to do a serious analog design based on them would seem impractical.
Its like a synthetic variation, not a logically novel form of argument. The flow is cutoff when the supply is witheld. The supply is withheld when the flow is cutoff. Etc.
Functional equivalents, and often the Law will see through such transparency. Are you going to withould supply from [an ethnic group, or a protected class] for example?
I was trying to say that noonespecial's suggestion for "technology companies everywhere to boycott a certain district in East Texas" isn't about net neutrality as schmichael objected because net neutrality is about intermediaries blocking or throttling access to services, whereas as the boycott noonespecial suggested would be by the providers of the service.
No, i do understand; but you are missing the point of the comment that you replied too -- which is that the purpose (public policy) of net neutrality is to prevent the collusion of private actors from acting against the common good. This type of collusion has issues associated with it that are far broader than what you are thinking of. And there are other laws/policy ideas beyond net neutrality to consider. This consideration isn't optional or arbitrary. [And this isn't an adversarial or snarky comment its just how the world works.]
But those private actors that the policy applies to must be middle men or acting on middle men in a network. Net neutrality as I understand it is about placing restrictions on network operators and regulators can do so that they cannot restrict access to content. So Wikipedia blocking access to it's own website would not be a network neutrality issue, but an ISP blocking access to it would.
And there are other laws/policy ideas beyond net neutrality to consider.
I was responding to a comment about network neutrality to say that it didn't apply. I wasn't discounting the possibility there could be other issues, although if Wikipedia decided to block access in Texas for a day (perhaps only allowing access to pages about patents, prior art etc.) I think that would be for the public good.
the collusion of private actors from acting against the common good
Net neutrality is not, per se the issue. it is one policy x of a set [X]. The argument/stratgem maybe far too narrow in scope to address the entire set [X], if for no other reason that its technical reference x not [X]. That was part of the larger point being made. There are alot of [laws] one may be breaking at the same time. If you are cute withrule Z an equally-hypertechnical look at law W might not be good. And if you try to undermine some of them (viz: a sythetic transaction) they are structured to see through to the end effect (don't care about the structure). So, if you are cutting off [insert name here] services to legally protected classes, for example, net neutrality might be the least of one's worries. And it might not matter the method. etc
Just something to think about. Also, this comment doesn't have anything to do with texas or whatever. Its just a general precaution. The issue is one of pre-texted market collusion, which being subject to abuse, is a dangerous precendent to allow.
Are you saying it doesn't matter if you are targeting legally protected classes specifically or if you are cutting off access to a wider group that includes them?
What is a sythetic transaction in this context? I tried googling it but couldn't find a good definition.
If net neutrality applied to service providers, Wikipedia would have been "guilty" of violating the ethic of network neutrality just for its boycott action earlier this year on the Internet blackout day to drum up opposition to SOPA and PROTECT IP Act.
. . . and "net neutrality" attempts to solve a problem by treating the symptoms rather than the infection itself, anyway. The real problem is governmental enabling and encouragement of monopolistic service providers. The fact such organizations may "abuse" the monopoly powers created and defended for them by governmental support is a side-effect of much deeper socioeconomic pathologies.
Once you've figured out on paper that 1 + 1 = 2, you don't necessarily have to put one apple next to one apple and count two apples to “complete the exercise.”
Really? You're really saying that people should not care about rampant sexism in the gaming industry just because some people have it worse? I suppose we should stop working to help poor families in the first world because people starving in third world countries have it much worse.
Actually, that is correct. You should help people in 3rd world countries first. Most of the homeless in America are "voluntarily" homeless, or have drug/mental problems. Even still, as homeless in America, they have it better off than most people in 3rd world countries. The average person in a 3rd world country lives off a few American dollars (equivalent) a day - and that is your average person. Here, a homeless person can probably get that much begging in a day. And calling it "rampant" sexism is ridiculous. We sexualize women, obviously, because that is what sells. There is no shame in sexual attraction (or depictions of it), no more so than the average square jawed, six-pack male protagonists we create. Sexuality is an advantage in this world, not a crutch. Let's stop pretending like its such a bad thing.
Yes, obviously. It is a question of magnitude. Here, the worst sexism is maybe job discrimination, but usually not even that because most employers do not want to risk lawsuits, and in fact actively try to diversify. Even still, this is a relatively trivial problem. Do we stone women to death here for cheating? Or not allow them to do (virtually) anything without their husband's permission? Like I said, there are bigger wars to fight. Let's not waste breath because someone thinks you can't play a video game, and you assume its because they are sexist.
I don't disagree your points, (whether someone wants to expend effort to solve particular problems is up to them), its just I see you are dismissing other's problems as "not important". i.e the "#FirstWorldProblems" tag in your original post. The experience obviously was unpleasant enough for the the original author to write a blog post about it, yet you dismiss it so readily.
"Actually, that is correct. You should help people in 3rd world countries first. Most of the homeless in America are "voluntarily" homeless, or have drug/mental problems. Even still, as homeless in America, they have it better off than most people in 3rd world countries. The average person in a 3rd world country lives off a few American dollars (equivalent) a day - and that is your average person"
Let's say your next door neighbour gets into an accident and becoming disabled in the process, cannot afford hospital bills and becomes homeless, you're not going to care, because you're donating to your favourite charity for third word countries already? Personally I don't see anything wrong with people helping people closer to them. - The helpers can help with more effectiveness than people 5000km away because being closer they will have better perspective. I also see nothing wrong with helping with your siblings mortgages just because they're closer to you, starving children in the 3rd world or not.
If you don't want to "waste" your breath, then don't. I just don't see how you telling people how to allocate their resources will ever work out. How do you know your preferred allocation is the best? How do you know the relative effectiveness of a person voicing their opinion about this issue rather than some other? Maybe they are much better at articulating issues relating to computer games than, food, for example. There's no way you can know that for sure.
(Note: This is (basically) useless in Haskell, since laziness makes this have the same semantics as a constant:
But since Gluon is strict, there's a pretty important difference between the two.)