Same for imperative languages with "parameter list" style. In python, with

def f(a, b): return c, d

def g(k, l): return m, n

you can't do

f(g(1,2))

but have to use

f(*g(1,2))

what is analogical to uncurry, but operate on value rather than function.

TBH I can't name a language where such f(g(1,2)) would work.

  #!/usr/bin/env perl
  use v5.36;
  
  sub f($a, $b) {
    return ($a+1, $b+1);
  }
  
  sub g($k, $l) {
    return ($k+1, $l+1);
  }
  
  say for f(g(1,2));

  3
  4

In the other thread you argued that AI output is not copyrighted.

Do you think I can take proprietary code and lauder through AI to get a non-copyrighted copy of it, then modify to my needs? How can I obtain the proprietary code legally in the first place?

I didn't argue it. The US courts made - and implicitly upheld - the ruling.

https://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/2026/03/us-supreme-court-de...

MIT asks for credit. GPL asks or credit and GPL'ing of things built atop. Unlicense is a free gift, but it is a minority.

AI reproduces code while removing credit and copyleft from it and this is the problem.

Why? The software is still there and you can still go choose to use it.

Another possible consensus would be that copyright don't exist, and anyone can copy proprietary or copyleft work and improve it. Nobody would be harmed in such situation, original author still have its copy. I would have no problem with such state - but it must be same for everyone, not just FOSS.

If a library I wrote was used by BigCo, then I could point to their license file and mention that in a job interview or something. If they have Claude generate something based on my code, they don't put it into their license, I don't get the resume fuel, and my work is unrewarded.

I have gone back and forth about how I feel about AI training on code, and whether I think it's "theft", but my point is that the original code being available is kind of missing the point.

How much of the book will you understand if you only read page 1?

If communication is 20% verbal and 80% nonverbal, and if communication is very nonlinear in understanding (as with your book example), how do we know what 1% of communication is? What does it mean, and how can we tell that the figure is correct, when our main or only way of detecting whether communication succeeded is through understanding or lack thereof?

That's not even a good test, due to miscommunication. Both parties might think it succeeded, but then much later on you find out the truth (maybe).

Somebody cursing in French can still be interpreted as anger even if you don't understand French, and written profanity can still be interpreted as anger even if you didn't hear it spoken.

Tone and language do complent each other, but neither is a prerequisite for the other like your book analogy would suggest.

Parsed perhaps, but it's so context sensitive that it's not useful, save for extremities. The same tone of voice can have so many meanings based on what's actually being said and yet another if you add context.

a radar

- often you use decimal fraction on output and input anyway

- it's slower, even slower with bigint

- no square root, sin, and so on with rationals

Better statement would be "no standard definition possible for square root, sin, and so on with rationals", as rationals with unbounded denominators don't have an inherent precision limit---something like ulps in floating point systems---and the max denominator wouldn't be a good choice for precision even when denominator is limited. Every such function now has to be given an explicit denominator value or similar strategy, which complicates both the interface and implementation.

Are you thinking about a specific library? You aren't the only person who commented this way. But, the truth is that root, sin and so on don't "work" with floats either. In fact, there are common ways to implement these functions by either using tables (which are approximate) or algebraic approximations (that give you... drum roll: rationals!)

But, really, there isn't any way (except symbolically) to represent transcendental functions in computers. It doesn't matter what kind of number you choose to do it.

    head {display:block; background:Canvas; color:CanvasText;}
    meta[content] {display:block; padding-bottom:1em;}
    meta[content]::after{content:attr(content); display:block;}

The disadvantage is that threads don't render.

Twitter has to be bad by virtue of being a corporation driven by profit motive and requiring JS to collect and sell user data. Mastodon doesn't have to be crap since it is not required to generate maximum profit. It just chooses to be as shown from the content being in the HTML but hidden. This makes Mastodon worse. Either it's malicious or, more likely, incompetent cargo culting of corporate practices. Devs unable to separate themselves from the use-cases they have to develop for at their paid jobs or lacking the knowledge to do so.

It worked fine until that happened and basically made it unusable since I don't have an iGPU.

Maybe I'll try some other Fedora, or just go back to X11 on Arch, which worked well enough.