Based on looking at the games at the end of the post, it seems unlikely. Both sides play extremely poorly — gpt-instruct is just slightly less bad — and I don't see any reasonable engine outputting those moves.

Also a bad argument: rephrasing GP's "We don't know enough to be sure this is safe" as "This is definitely unsafe".

However, a sibling comment makes a really good point - that's exactly how we treat pharmaceuticals. We don't allow consumption (except in dire cases) until the product is proven safe (with a very conservative definition of proven safe). One could argue we should have the same approach with foods - the health food supplement industry has had a lot of criticism for not having enough controls. 'artificial food' of this sort seems like it should be in a similar category.

The raycast probably disambiguated the state pretty well, such that it essentially had to memorize a few hundred actions, so that it did end up basically doing a sort of asynchronous distributed Dijkstra's algorithm.

This is a misleading article in the following sense: the implication is "here are these seven surprising factors that are correlated with successful marriages". Except, in recent decades US divorce rates have bifurcated into two groups — well educated, affluent people who get married later and have lower divorce rates, and less well-off people who have a higher divorce rate. Given this one fact, most of the factors in the article are completely unsurprising. For example, it would be surprising if going on a honeymoon was not correlated positively with a successful marriage given that it is positively correlated with income.

So yes, they would be runtime errors in Python. But that's not such a catastrophe, actually. The way I write Python is by being in an IPython shell, writing short functions, unit-testing them as I go. So the development-time cost of those runtime errors is not very high, and in my experience offset by the flexibility and interactiveness. Writing in a functional style without much mutable state is really the thing that I find saves development/debugging time.

> The way I write Python is by being in an IPython shell, writing short functions, unit-testing them as I go.

One can write Scala the same way in a Scala shell.

Your type checker catches array indexing bugs? Impressive.

No, but Scala encourages FP, so when you:

    val fooList = List(1,2,3)
    fooList.map(...)

you'll _never_ hit the types of bugs you're referring to.

If you fooList(3), then of course you're hosed, but that's not the type checker's fault ;-)

I don't agree even with the sentiment of the original post, but there is an argument that while you can't get rid of array indexing bugs with a type checker (contracts might help here) you can design your collection types such that things like indexing above or below an array are compile time caught, as is indexing into the "wrong" array location.

Whether it is worth the trouble to do this in the type system probably depends on how good your language's type system is and how expensive array indexing bugs are to catch/fix.

Actually, in the original (circa 1968) Pascal, it did.

In Pascal, the size of an array was part of the type of the array. IIRC, You simply could not write an array index out of bounds bug. This made it a somewhat reasonable choice for a medical device, where an array index out of bounds could be catastrophic. However...

You also could not create a variable-sized array. There was no way even to talk about the type of such an object. (Yes, I ran into that professionally once.) I think this is why Turbo Pascal (and maybe others?) softened that.

Yes. http://www.ats-lang.org/

Not a book, but Andrew Ng's coursera course (or Stanford class video lectures) are great and have lots of practical tips.

This blog post? http://antirez.com/post/different-take-sexism-it.html

I'd be curious how many people here find this beyond the pale. As a data point, I didn't. I don't agree with all of it, but I don't see what part of it counts as sexist, in the sense of advocating discrimination based on gender.

I think it's a thoughtful post. It's clear that he doesnt like discrimination against anyone, and is proposing how we should act in order to treat everyone in an inclusive and fair manner, for the benefit of all parties.

"Sexist" is advocating discrimination based on gender in the same sense that "theory" is used to trivialize evolution. Both mean a whole lot more than a brief look at them outside of the context in which they are rooted leads one to believe.

I just find it ignorant and misguided. He ignores reality in favor of his preferred theoretical model of the world.

It is sexist, in that advocating for the sexist status quo is advocating for sexism.

Or, perhaps easier:

scoped_ptr<Image> image(allocate_image(...));