Most of the rail has get around mountainous, uneven terrain subject to earthquakes, strong winds, and heavy rain. California should be able to build rail parallel to the I-5, a long, flat terrain without extreme weather or strong earthquakes. The problem seems to be a political one, not an engineering one. In fact, if the Interstate Highway System did not already exist, I doubt the U.S. today would be able to accept and complete it.
> one long line with a few branches
I currently live in Japan, and that does not really match what I've observed. There are three distinct railway companies in my area (JR, Tokyu, Yokohama Municipal Subway), each with their own dedicated rail, trains, power supply, etc.
The situation is more like "a disjoint union of graphs, where some of the graphs are connected".
At my current job, I sometimes set up a Nix shell with the GitHub CLI, since that let's Claude Code associate a feature branch to a pull request. The LLM can then retrieve PR description, workflow results, review comments, etc.
Also, I believe GitHub Actions cache cannot be bulk deleted outside of the CLI. The first time I [hesitantly] used the gh CLI was to empty GitHub Actions cache. At the time it wasn't possible with the REST API or web interface.
That's right, its tokenization and fragment rules use fairly simple heuristics that assume whitespace delimited words plus English language/punctuation. Proper CJK support would require language specific tokenization and morphological parsing. Correcting rules like "≤4 words = dramatic fragment" would be difficult. The more complex rules already require LLM roundtrips, so supporting all languages in one pass would need to rely on LLM alone, I imagine.
Which brings up an interesting point - what do these LLM clichés look like in Japanese?
> what do these LLM clichés look like in Japanese?
Besides text reading like a machine translation, the tell-tale signs often involve things like:
- itemized lists (I know, it's ironic that I'm using them here)
- frequent use of conjunctions
- use of demonstratives that feels redundant
- full-width colons, especially in titles
- subheadings that always end in abstract nouns
- bold text, especially at the beginning of a line
The demonstrative bit may be hard to express, but to give you an idea: when communicating in Japanese, words that can be understood from context may be omitted. Explicitly writing out words understood from context can sometimes make a sentence sound redundant.
Before LLMs were widespread, SEO spam in the Japanese net tended to be affiliate sites with predictable, template paragraphs. I get reminded of those sites whenever GPT starts a response with 「結論から言うと、〇〇」, since that's exactly how those affiliate sites wrote back in the day.
Yeah, the title made me think the author found a bug in the Lean kernel, thus making an invalid proof pass Lean's checks. The article instead uncovers bugs in the Lean runtime and lean-zip, but these bugs are less damning than e.g. the kernel, which must be trusted to be correct, or else you can't trust any proof in Lean.
When the Lean runtime has bugs, all Lean applications using the Lean runtime also have those bugs. I can’t understand people trying to make a distinction here. Is your intent to have a bug free application or to just show the Lean proof kernel is solid?? The latter is only useful to Lean developers, end users should only care about the former!
The intent is to have a proof of some proposition. The Lean runtime crashing doesn't stop the lean-zip developers from formally modelling zlib and proving certain correctness statements under this model. On the other hand, the Lean kernel having a bug would mean we may discover entire classes of proofs that were just wrong; if those statements were used as corollaries/lemmas/etc. for other proofs, then we'd be in a lot of trouble.
When I see a title transitioning from "Lean said this proof is okay" to "I found a bug in Lean", I'm intuitively going to think the author just found a soundness (or consistency) issue in Lean.
There are no Lean applications other than Lean. This is an important point most of the comments are missing. Lean is for proving math. Yes, you can use it for other things; but no, no one is.
Still good to have found, but drawing conclusions past “someone could cheat at proving the continuum hypothesis” isn’t really warranted.
> What's preventing Japanese engineers from doing the same?
The fact they don't really need it in their life (or job). English is definitely necessary if you work service jobs in Tokyo (to deal with tourists), but not much anywhere else.
Japanese is one of a handful of languages where one can complete a postdoc entirely within the language. Many languages are not like this. e.g. in the Phillipines, STEM subjects are almost entirely taught in English, since Tagalog simply doesn't have words to describe most of the concepts. The result is something like 90% of the coursework being in English, with random Tagalog words mixed in. The concept is called "Taglish" if I recall correctly.
This is unnecessary in countries like Japan, China, South Korea, etc. If you're applying to a graduate school in Japan (or China, or Korea), expecting to receive education in English is actually the edge-case, not the expectation.
Also, at least in my company, there is an interesting trend where people are deciding learning English isn't really necessary since AI translation has gotten "good enough" for most use cases.
> The result is something like 90% of the coursework being in English, with random Tagalog words mixed in. The concept is called "Taglish" if I recall correctly.
Spoken Tagalog has always impressed me (though I can't really say I know any) for how freely English seems to be mixed in (and well pronounced, such that you notice the difference in phonology), in varying ratios. I'm quite sure there's a deliberate code-switching to it.
> people are deciding learning English isn't really necessary since AI translation has gotten "good enough" for most use cases.
It's honestly really impressive. Although I'm told it can occasionally glitch and treat the text as a prompt instead of just translating it.
> The fact they don't really need it in their life (or job). English is definitely necessary if you work service jobs in Tokyo (to deal with tourists), but not much anywhere else.
But the linked article seems to imply the opposite. I mean, working with an English PM sure sounds like the language is one of the job's core competencies.
I wonder how the figures look for countries outside of the United States.
For what its worth, I ended up getting a tech job in Japan instead. Ironically, the requirements at U.S. startups are much higher, and U.S. startups fit the stereotype of Japanese work culture more than Japanese companies nowadays.
I'd love to see a Japanese version of this. "Bet which of one of JR Chūō Line, JR Saikyō Line, and Tokyo Metro Tōzai Line will NOT get a delay certificate printed today".
Look at you, complaining about your famously on schedule Japanese trains! ;)
Over here in France a train is considered on time if it has up to a 15mn delay. We can ask for a very partial refund only if it has at least 30mn of delay, and we get a voucher to book another train that will also be late.
In my case, the question was "how are you using AI tools?" And trying to see whether you're still in the metaphorical stone age of copy-pasting code into chatgpt.com or making use of (at the time modern) agentic workflows. Not sure how good of an idea this is, but at least it was a question that popped up after passing technical interviews. I want to believe the purpose of this question was to gauge whether applicants were keeping up with dev tooling or potentially stagnating.
To be fair, this topic seems to be quite divisive, and seems like something that definitely should be discussed during an interview. Who is right and wrong is one thing, but you likely don't want to be working for a company who has an incompatible take on this topic to you.
I assume the reason is that `await` de-schedules the current microtask. In fact, even if you immediately return from an `await`, the de-scheduling can introduce behavior that otherwise would be absent without `await`. For this reason, code optimizers (like the Google Closure Compiler) treat `await` as a side-effect and do not optimize it out.
Most of the rail has get around mountainous, uneven terrain subject to earthquakes, strong winds, and heavy rain. California should be able to build rail parallel to the I-5, a long, flat terrain without extreme weather or strong earthquakes. The problem seems to be a political one, not an engineering one. In fact, if the Interstate Highway System did not already exist, I doubt the U.S. today would be able to accept and complete it.
> one long line with a few branches
I currently live in Japan, and that does not really match what I've observed. There are three distinct railway companies in my area (JR, Tokyu, Yokohama Municipal Subway), each with their own dedicated rail, trains, power supply, etc.
The situation is more like "a disjoint union of graphs, where some of the graphs are connected".
reply