Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Urbit is now in open developer beta

urbit.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 163 posts

Re: Urbit is now in open developer beta

#131

Post by lisper »

kazinator wrote: post #106
lisper wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that Curtis strongly (and snarkily) claims that Hoon is a typed language: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11819810 item #3 (and subsequent discussion) So why are they punning integers and booleans in the first place?

Punning means that we have two types, and we somehow interchange them; use an object of type A, as if it were of type B. We thereby leave behind the type system and take responsibility for that being correct. If a language doesn't have a Boolean type, and some other type serves for indicating truth/falsehood, then that is a representational technique distinct from punning. A language with no Boolean type can be stati…

I don't want to quibble over terminology, so fine: Hoon doesn't pun integers and booleans, it conflates them. Whatever you call it, it's still a horrible hack, and IMHO if you put in your language you surrender your snark privileges when comparing your language to Lisp.

Re: Urbit is now in open developer beta

#132

Post by notthemessiah »

kofejnik wrote: post #76
middleclick wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without actually reading what it says, you seem to be attacking the source rather than the content.

ironically, this is what the parent comment is doing - attacking the author and not the message

Nope, I said that Urbit is an explicit instantiation of his political views, which is a claim which I don't think Yarvin would contest.

Re: Urbit is now in open developer beta

#133

Post by kazinator »

lisper wrote: post #131
kazinator wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Punning means that we have two types, and we somehow interchange them; use an object of type A, as if it were of type B. We thereby leave behind the type system and take responsibility for that being correct. If a language doesn't have a Boolean type, and some other type serves for indicating truth/falsehood, then that is a representational technique distinct from punning. A language with no Boolean type can be stati…

I don't want to quibble over terminology, so fine: Hoon doesn't pun integers and booleans, it conflates them. Whatever you call it, it's still a horrible hack, and IMHO if you put in your language you surrender your snark privileges when comparing your language to Lisp.

Common Lisp conflates all types with Boolean. NIL, the sole instance of the NULL type in Common Lisp, is false, and an instance of every other type is true. (Of course, this situation quite good).

Re: Urbit is now in open developer beta

#134

Post by hodwik2 »

dwaltrip wrote: post #123
hodwik2 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"But not IQ? What's the exception?" I don't think intelligence, outside of unusual situations, is a physical characteristic. So I'm not sure how to answer your question.

Intelligence is produced by the brain, which is a physical organ...

>"Intelligence is produced by the brain"

Depends what you mean by produced. If you mean it happens in the brain, then the following would also be true:

- I prefer Strawberry ice cream. Preferences happen in the brain, which is a physical organ. Ice cream preference must be physical.

- I speak English, which is a language, and language happens in the brain, which is a physical organ. English must be physical.

If by produced you are just repeating that you think it is physical, that is begging the question.

Do you argue that every process in a computer is physical, since it all runs on top of hardware? Do you have no conception of software when it comes to the human mind?

Re: Urbit is now in open developer beta

#135

Post by davidgerard »

notthemessiah wrote: post #132
kofejnik wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ironically, this is what the parent comment is doing - attacking the author and not the message

Nope, I said that Urbit is an explicit instantiation of his political views, which is a claim which I don't think Yarvin would contest.

He's stated this outright.

Re: Urbit is now in open developer beta

#136

Post by mikeash »

trentmb wrote: post #62
akhilcacharya wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you know about Yarvins other beliefs, the fact that t seems obfuscated makes quite a bit of sense in my view. I think it's a superiority thing for him. At its core? I think it's kind of interesting. Would have been more useful if he had made it simpler to understand/develop in. In its current form, it seems like a vanity project to me.

Ironically non-inclusive, elitist language is a mainstay for leftists too. EDIT: Read Marxists.org, it's incredibly unapproachable to the layman that didn't complete high school let alone middle school.

I'm not sure why that's ironic. Extremists tend to have a lot in common in their overall approaches, even if they may be violently opposed on the specifics.

Re: Urbit is now in open developer beta

#137

Post by lisper »

kazinator wrote: post #133
lisper wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want to quibble over terminology, so fine: Hoon doesn't pun integers and booleans, it conflates them. Whatever you call it, it's still a horrible hack, and IMHO if you put in your language you surrender your snark privileges when comparing your language to Lisp.

Common Lisp conflates all types with Boolean. NIL, the sole instance of the NULL type in Common Lisp, is false, and an instance of every other type is true. (Of course, this situation quite good).

> Common Lisp conflates all types with Boolean

Yes, I know.

> (Of course, this situation quite good).

I think that's debatable. Javascript, for example, does something similar but it takes all empty containers as false, along with zero and a few other things. (Not that I am necessarily holding up Javascript as an example of good language design. My point here is just that there is not a consensus on how (or whether -- c.f. Scheme) to conflate booleans with other types.)

The salient differences between CL's boolean conflation and Hoon's are:

1. CL's conflation design is justifiable in terms of how it simplifies coding recursion over a list, which is the single most important Lisp coding idiom.

2. Hoon tries to justify using zero as true by saying that non-zero integers can carry information about the nature of a failure. (At least I've heard some people try to justify it in this way. I'm not sure if Curtis does not not.) But now you are no longer conflating integers with booleans, you are conflating integers with multiple enum types, one for every possible set of failure types. Flouting convention is one thing. Flouting convention in order to enable conflation of integers and enums undermines Hoon's claim of being strongly statically typed (at least in any interesting way).

Re: Urbit is now in open developer beta

#138

Post by patrickg_zill »

hodwik2 wrote: post #104
patrickg_zill wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So all other physical characteristics, even things to do with domestication of dogs, that are more "soft" like temperament, are hereditable? But not IQ? What's the exception? If your view is that genetics in terms of the science is flawed, then, don't beat around the bush, state your case.

>"But not IQ? What's the exception?" I don't think intelligence, outside of unusual situations, is a physical characteristic. So I'm not sure how to answer your question.

If you have any reasoning or research to back up your view, I would genuinely like to see it.

For sure, we don't understand everything about the brain, but we certainly have found correlations between physical characteristics of the brain and IQ.

BTW, try to convince a dog breeder that temperament is 100% nurture and 0% nature. I would like to hear that person's answer.

Re: Urbit is now in open developer beta

#139

Post by cmiles74 »

Pyxl101 wrote: post #40
hodwik2 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not believe IQ is heritable -- racially, or otherwise . Full stop. Intelligence is, by my estimation, entirely a function of nurture, not nature. Those exceptions are in situations where it is lacking due to handicap. Which is to say, everyone's brain has the same chance at brilliance (barring fetal alcohol syndrome, neglect, etc.) if they are not intellectually handicapped, and are provided the same child-reari…

I think you're making a good point overall. If a trait is heritable then it will vary by populations. People should understand the consequences of the position they're arguing. However, why do you believe that IQ is not heritable? It's hard to believe there is no genetic component that is heritable. Humans evolved over time from other species, and in the process of evolving into Homo sapiens sapiens , their intellige…

I understand your point, and I think I understand that of the original parent comment. I don't have much to add, except that believing intelligence is not heritable strikes me as a well thought-out and, in my opinion, largely constructive decision. Up until this very moment, I have always been interested in the reality of this idea; that is, what is true and what is false. Just now it has occurred to me that there is also a political component to this idea, as well as very real moral issue.

After reading through the comments and trying to suss out the logical conclusions of the idea "intelligence is heritable", I have decided to make the same decision.

From here on out, my position is that intelligence is not heritable. This is what I will tell my children and grandchildren. When they ask why, I will tell them that I simply believe it to be true. That it "feels right" to me and the alternative feels truly wrong.

In terms of the science and what is actually happening in the physical world, what measurements and testing actually prove: I am not interested and will not take part in the discussion as I find the idea that intelligence is heritable to be morally wrong. Maybe there is some giant leap humanity could make, and maybe millions of lives could be saved, but I don't care; I think the idea is abhorrent enough that I personally do not want to take the risk.

I'm not trying to preach, but point out that there's more to it than the science and what is objectively real.

Re: Urbit is now in open developer beta

#140

Post by dwaltrip »

hodwik2 wrote: post #134
dwaltrip wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intelligence is produced by the brain, which is a physical organ...

>"Intelligence is produced by the brain" Depends what you mean by produced. If you mean it happens in the brain, then the following would also be true: - I prefer Strawberry ice cream. Preferences happen in the brain, which is a physical organ. Ice cream preference must be physical. - I speak English, which is a language, and language happens in the brain, which is a physical organ. English must be physical. If by pr…

Yes, I have a conception of software when it comes to the human mind. Even assuming the "software" is identical across humans (which seems unlikely), if one human has 10% or 20% better "hardware" due to genetics, wouldn't we expect differences in intelligence (accounting for differences in nurturing and other potential confounders)? Especially given how general human intelligence is -- it shouldn't arbitrarily cap out. It seems inconceivable to me that all humans would be born with exactly the same mental hardware, when that isn't true for any other attribute. I could go on...

I don't want to get into a lengthy debate -- plenty of other commenters have already addressed it all fairly sufficiently. I do appreciate your patience and well articulated comments, even if I disagree with them.

Post reply on HN