Kogasa

It’s a different situation, as a dev I’d happily bet my life on this assumption.

Dropping support for that stuff means breaking 95% of the websites people currently use. It’s a non-starter, it cannot ever happen, even if you think it would be for the best.

Math builds up so much context that it’s hard to avoid the use of shorthand and reused names for things. Every math book and paper will start with definitions. So it’s not really on you for not recognizing it here

🍕(–, B) : C -> Set denotes the contravariant hom functor, normally written Hom(–, B). In this case, C is a category, and B is a fixed object in that category. The – can be replaced by either an object or morphism of C, and that defines a map from C to Set.

For any given object X in C, the hom-set Hom(X, C) is the set of morphisms X -> B in C. For a morphism f : X -> Y in C, the Set morphism Hom(f, B) : Hom(Y, B) -> Hom(X, B) is defined by sending each g : Y -> B to gf : X -> B. This is the mapping C -> Set defined by Hom(–, C), and it’s a (contravariant) functor because it respects composition: if h : X -> Y and f : Y -> Z then fh : X -> Z and Hom(fh, C) = Hom(h, C)Hom(f, C) sends g : Z -> B to gfh : X -> B.

–

P^(n)® AKA RP^n is the n-dimensional real projective space.

–

The caveat “phi is a morphism” is probably just to clarify that we’re talking about “all morphisms X -> Y [in a given category]” and not simply all functions or something.

–

For more context, the derived functor of Hom(–, B) is called the Ext functor, and the exactness of that sequence (if the typo were fixed) is the statement of the universal coefficient theorem (for cohomology): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_coefficient_theorem The solution to this problem is the “Example: mod 2 cohomology of the real projective space” on that page. It’s (Z/2Z)[x] / <x^(n+1)> or 🍔[x]/<x^(n+1)>, i.e. the ring of polynomials of degree n or less with coefficients in 🍔 = Z/2Z, meaning coefficients of 0 or 1.

It’s not nonsense, although there is a typo that makes it technically unsolvable. If you fix the typo, it’s an example calculation in the wikipedia page on the universal coefficient theorem: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_coefficient_theorem

It’s real projective space

Nice pic

I’m with you until the lockin. How does that happen?

Yeah, specifically for something like coreutils I can’t see the malicious endgame that is suggested by others here. Is the fear that a proprietary version of cat or pwd or printf takes over the ecosystem and then traps users into a nonfree agreement? Or a proprietary coreutils superset that offers some new tool and does the same thing? Or a proprietary coreutils that generates profit for businesses without attribution to the developers? What would stop anyone from just writing their own proprietary set of tools to do the same thing now, even if uutils didn’t exist? Clearly not much, since uutils did exactly that (minus the proprietary bit).

I personally don’t see a compelling reason to change to MIT, but I also don’t see the problem.

Code is easy in a vacuum. 50 moving parts all with their own quirks and insufficient testing is how you get stuff like this to happen.

No, that’s what induction is. You prove the base case (e.g. n=1) and then prove that the (n+1) case follows from the (n) case. You may then conclude the result holds for all n, since we proved it holds for 1, which means it holds for 2, which means it holds for 3, and so on.

It’s not actually claiming that all horses are the same color, it’s an example of a flawed induction argument

No, they’re not sure. You’re correct.

Definitely not.

All people. 320kbps mp3 is completely audibly transparent under all normal listening conditions. It’s a low-tier audiophile meme to claim otherwise but they will never pass a double-blind test.

It means they admit they were wrong and you were correct. As in, “I have been corrected.”

I don’t think you need permission to send someone an email directly addressed to and written for them. I don’t have context for the claims about Kagi being disputed, but I’d be frustrated if someone posted a misinformed rant about my work and then refused to talk to me about it. I might even write an email. Doesn’t sound crazy. If there’s more to the “harassment” that I don’t know about, obviously I’m not in favor.

You can also get a bluetooth amp/dac and plug your wired headphones into there. I use a Qudelix 5k for my IEMs at home and I can just put it in my pocket if I want to take them out.

Your first sentence asserts the claim to be proved. Actually it asserts something much stronger which is also false, as e.g. 0.101001000100001… is a non-repeating decimal which doesn’t include “2”. While pi is known to be irrational and transcendental, there is no known proof that it is normal or even disjunctive, and generally such proofs are hard to come by except for pathological numbers constructed specifically to be normal/disjunctive or not.

Web of trust