Quote:

And 70% (or thereabouts) of all Python programs must indicate in the implementation language in the program name. (Even Visual Basic programmers don't feel a need to give their programs names starting with "vb"!)

That's just petty.

Quote:

ARM ABI and dotNet leaves me with a much better gut feeling. They encourage me to use the language that is best suited for the task. Python does not. It more or less demands that I use Python, whether suitable or not. It takes away my freedom. That is probably on top of the list. The two other points come in second and third.

Using an ABI would make sense if Python was a low-level system language. It's not, and was probably never intended to be one; the language itself is written in C (See CPython). It's meant to be an abstraction-layer language, and if C can use an ABI, it wouldn't take very much work to abstract it in Python. I like Python because it's a simple language that allows me to write up a proof of concept with very little impedance between the idea and the application in itself. If I need OOP, I can use it, but I'm not required to. Type checking is an option, and what's more free than being allowed to choose? Have I made embarrassing messes with Python? More than I'd like to admit, but every time I did, I learned that I wasn't thinking in Python, but thinking in X-Language, and *translating* it into Python. Since I don't work in Python on a daily basis, thinking in Python (TIP) doesn't come as easily for me as it would otherwise. Nonetheless, when I'm in a TIP-state of mind, the code I produce is leagues ahead of what I produced with the thinking-in-X-then-translation method.

If you want static type-checking in Python, you can use 'import typing': [typing — Support for type hints — Python 3.8.3 documentation](https://docs.python.org/3/library/typing.html)

John Woods said it best, and the same applies for comments: > Always code as if the guy who ends up > maintaining your code will be a violent > psychopath who knows where you live.

Tables are EVIL INCARNATE when they're being used for page layout, especially when no planning has been done to consider printing a page full of tables nested in tables when that's one of the unstated (because it was elephant-ing obvious) requirements. Trust me, I'm trying to unwind a nested cesspool of tables used on an old form into something mildly better using Bootstrap, just because printers can deal with it so much better.

My alarm clock app requires me to do some simple arithmetic to turn off the buzzer. It tends to make me more alert than just hitting a button.

I have my Raspberry Pi running as a server, running minidlna for streaming to my TV, SFTP for "cloud" storage, and shellinabox for CLI (and causing panic in people who think I'm hacking their computer from within a browser). I've had the opposite experience, running a laptop with Ubuntu (Gnome 3 for myself as a WM, and MATE for my wife), with a partition for Windows 8.1 that hardly ever gets booted.

An excellent course for Linear Algebra is at Linear Algebra: Foundations to Frontiers[^] If you need it in the structure of a class (with schedules, homework and deadlines), they're offering it on edX[^]. Otherwise, the videos for their course are on Youtube[^] as well.

And Cyanide and Happiness.[^]

I'm also a Pratchett newcomer, but I found this guide to be invaluable to get the general gist of what the series is about. I plan to read "Mort" first (after I finish my current reading). http://io9.com/the-io9-guide-to-discworld-1698768077[^]

jibalt wrote:

You don't even seem to KNOW what a definition is.

FTFY

d.shapiro wrote:

It sounds to me as if basefolder is just a (much) simplified FTP service.

And not even SFTP.

Therefore, proving that the formal system isn't consistent in the first place, despite it being able to prove that it is. But the real problem is that neither "Google" nor "evil" have been formally defined. So there's no formal system where Google can claim /or/ prove to be either not-"evil" or "evil".

jibalt wrote:

Gödel's second incompleteness theorem states that a consistent system cannot prove its own consistency. And of course inconsistent systems can prove anything, true or false, including their consistency.

It's better said that if a system S includes a statement about its own consistency, then by definition S is inconsistent. To demonstrate its consistency, you have to include statements that are outside of S.

jibalt wrote:

This is an odd and confusing way to state these, as it isn't clear that they are universally qualified.

Granted, that's the way I learned it, but we could nitpick all day, since it should say: Consistency: For all X \in S, ... because there are statements outside of S that can "declare" the completeness of S. Of course, that would create a new system S_0, which has its own "Godel sentence". And so on.

jibalt wrote:

If G could be proved, that would be a contradiction, making the system inconsistent. And since it cannot be proved, it's true.

It's not that "since it cannot be proved, it's true"; every false statement in S could be considered true by that phrase, which would break consistency. My understanding of Godel's ITs (once again, as someone who's still grasping wisps of understanding about it): If a system has to discard either consistency or completeness, consistency is more important, so completeness goes out the window. G has to be true and unproven, violating completeness, since proving G would violate consistency, which defeats the purpose of having the system in the first place. (Apologies for leaving out the o with the dieresis atop; Godel deserves to have his name written correctly, but I'm at a loss on how to type it with my current keyboard settings.)

Kenneth Haugland wrote:

I thought Godel proved that a system can't prove its own consistency unless it is inconsistent.

Not even close. Consistency: X is provable, therefore X is true. Completeness: X is true, therefore X is provable. The most important of the two aspects is consistency, because if you're able to prove something that's actually false, there's no point to proving anything. The layman's version of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem claims that in any closed system there are statements that are true and unprovable, because proving them would violate consistency.

An interesting article about ternary bases. http://bit-player.org/wp-content/extras/bph-publications/AmSci-2001-11-Hayes-ternary.pdf[^]

I recall reading a short sci-fi story some time ago that had FTL transportation, but not FTL communication. The main kicker of that being that you could arrive at a distant planet, but everyone there would ignore you until light from your originating location was able to catch up. It was a silly premise, but it was intriguing as well.

SortaCore wrote:

"The One Who Wields The Frying Pan"

of Doom!

One thing that Python has going for it is its simplicity. It's a simple language, where you don't need a lot of OO cruft to get results from. The other is a truly dedicated set of people who not only love the language, but love to contribute to it. The IPython notebook system is excellent for testing snippets of code, and seeing the results immediately. http://www.pgbovine.net/ipython-notebook-first-impressions.htm[^] I'd disagree with the teacher where he says that "Python is what programmers need today to be hireable", but there's a lot of power in the language, and it's being used by squads of scientists who aren't waiting for a programmer/developer/analyst to get around to resolving their issues.

You're falling into the same trap I just mentioned. "Polished software takes time" doesn't imply that "Given time, all software is polished software". The problem with Microsoft is that they want to claim that all of their software is polished, based on their brand name, when there have been more than enough cases where that isn't true.

It's the layman's way to inform themselves of what science is up to. Considering that many people don't have access to the journals that researchers publish in, it's one way to make science somewhat more accessible to the general public. And it probably is a gateway to youth in school to help define where their interests lie if they have an inclination for science. And to deride their selection is shortsighted. They are publishing what their market wants to consume, and they have a limited space in which to do it; of course they can't span all of science.