@shriram
Brown Computer Science / Brown University || BootstrapWorld || Pyret || Racket I'm unreasonably fascinated by, delighted by, and excited about #compsci #education #cycling #cricket and the general human experience.
Sssh!!!
Yes we do, at least in other areas.
And this has nothing to do with "virtue signaling", except in your brain perhaps.
So no realJacqueline, eh?
Yikes. I do.
Every time I've come home with a bottle of oxy I've been resolved to not finish the bottle. That seems like a useful discipline.
I mean, the policy of "we'll reject your paper if you fuck around" is usually a pretty good force. Especially if the chairs then actually enforce it.
bsky.app/profile/shri...
I agree, I far prefer [CG26] to [7].
When I was younger I didn't care, but as my mental database of papers has grown larger and larger, [CG26] carries a *lot* more semantics than [7].
Well?
Harper to the judge: "Your driver's license doesn't list your height and weight at birth. It doesn't list where you used to live. It identifies who you are now."
Really, what we should be doing is saying «doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6392.003.0006 observes that…». That's the only truly meaningful identifier. But «[BT01] observes that» is a human-readable, useful abbreviation for that. So we should just roll with that.
What if a paper is Cannone*, Grochow*, Fortnow, and Krishnamurthi?
* equal contributions
Why is that cited as Cannone et al? Shouldn't that be Cannone, Grochow, et al? Should we be checking the paper masthead footnotes to figure out how to cite correctly? ↵
Last week I had an amusing meeting w/ a person who said "Oh, I didn't realize you were part of [project that I initiated and advised and led]" — the citations were all to someone else and I was in the et al. Doesn't affect me, as a senior, but for someone less senior this could have consequences. ↵
I actually have some sympathy for the "don't use «et al»" argument, because it practices a kind of erasure. Maybe we prioritize by most contributing author, in which case having only one name appear is okay. But what if authors are alphabetized? Why give credit to one and not the others? ↵
"[CG26]" is a noun, folks. Let's just get on with it. The more people complain about this the more and more inclined I am to just treat it as a noun in papers going forward. Requiring "Canonne and Grochow [CG26] show" as opposed to "[CG26] shows" is pointless pedantry. ↵
Yeah, it really does go both ways.
Taibbi's journey still leaves me scratching my head, though I expect someone who read him deeper and better than I did can find a clear, consistent through-line.
Oh, she won't become president. I'm just saying what she's doing. You gotta start at the top to end up as some kind of cabinet member.
I'm sure you're thinking of Typst.
Gina is trial-balloon launching her 2028 presidential campaign.
www.nytimes.com/2026/03/06/o...
That's a good way to put it.
Maybe it's meant to be sarcastic commentary? All this money spent, on nothing achieved in the end?
Citadel Securities is claiming an uptick (based on Indeed and other data) in job postings for software engineers.
www.citadelsecurities.com/news-and-ins...
More to the point, if you force spaces around binary ops, you can have kebob-cased-names like the good lord intended. It is truly one of the very nicest things (of many nice things) about coding in Pyret.
If I understand you correctly, anyway!
You people are all a lot smarter than me, that's why I needed the Made Easy version!
Not sure I 100% agree. I want templates that are written in a way I can understand and fill in, and that's not at all what I get. Indeed, one of the interesting things about having a class of 20 students all generate code for the same problem is that you can see just how much diversity you get.
Rhodes is the go-to.
That’s how Pyret works!
He has at least one son who is an excellent programmer, if that helps. (-:
But the fact is that Claude Code produces far better code than most of my students do in most situations, including a bunch of things they can't do. The focus has shifted.