Newest at the top
| 2026-04-03 02:45:00 +0000 | arandombit | (~arandombi@user/arandombit) arandombit |
| 2026-04-03 02:45:00 +0000 | arandombit | (~arandombi@2a02:2455:8656:7100:cd4b:38a2:fba4:622b) (Changing host) |
| 2026-04-03 02:45:00 +0000 | arandombit | (~arandombi@2a02:2455:8656:7100:cd4b:38a2:fba4:622b) |
| 2026-04-03 02:44:56 +0000 | <mesaoptimizer> | ... sorry, that was for davean |
| 2026-04-03 02:44:47 +0000 | <mesaoptimizer> | EvanR: I disagree about that claim when in a cognitively adverserial environment |
| 2026-04-03 02:44:15 +0000 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 255 seconds) |
| 2026-04-03 02:44:02 +0000 | <davean> | Yah the obligation is on you to actually think clearly about it. |
| 2026-04-03 02:43:57 +0000 | <EvanR> | (there's a lot in there that is haskell specific, but as far as groundbreaking insights maybe not many) |
| 2026-04-03 02:43:23 +0000 | <EvanR> | otherwise don't bother |
| 2026-04-03 02:43:17 +0000 | <EvanR> | ok if you're going to analyze the article then yeah maybe read it |
| 2026-04-03 02:42:58 +0000 | arandombit | (~arandombi@user/arandombit) (Ping timeout: 248 seconds) |
| 2026-04-03 02:42:56 +0000 | <mesaoptimizer> | so it still stands. It is not specific to Haskell. |
| 2026-04-03 02:42:30 +0000 | <mesaoptimizer> | Leary: perhaps I misused the word, but my point was about semantic safety, in the sense of Benjamin Pierce's definition in TAPL |
| 2026-04-03 02:42:19 +0000 | <EvanR> | as you wish |
| 2026-04-03 02:41:16 +0000 | <mesaoptimizer> | EvanR: not fully, of course. I imagine maybe the author wrote a bunch of bullet points up and then used an LLM to expand upon it. But all right, I'll give the essay another shot and continue reading it |
| 2026-04-03 02:40:40 +0000 | <Leary> | mesaoptimizer: You expect wrong; people use 'pure' just to mean 'pure'; there's no implicit /by construction/. |
| 2026-04-03 02:40:38 +0000 | <EvanR> | none it seems especially controversial either |
| 2026-04-03 02:40:25 +0000 | <EvanR> | tales from tech |
| 2026-04-03 02:40:19 +0000 | <EvanR> | we've seen reports like this for years |
| 2026-04-03 02:40:00 +0000 | <mesaoptimizer> | my conclusion is that the essay above is generated using a SOTA LLM, and therefore is adverserially generated to seem insightful, but actually be dangerously wasteful of human time |
| 2026-04-03 02:39:57 +0000 | <EvanR> | it's classic "dev speak" |
| 2026-04-03 02:39:47 +0000 | <EvanR> | that article isn't LLM style at all |
| 2026-04-03 02:39:33 +0000 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2026-04-03 02:39:19 +0000 | <mesaoptimizer> | I accept the existence of parts of a language that are delineated such that they do not have semantic safety in terms of abstractions that protect you from the underlying computational substrate |
| 2026-04-03 02:39:18 +0000 | <davean> | geekosaur: About unsafe stuff |
| 2026-04-03 02:38:46 +0000 | <geekosaur> | since neither compiler can give you static guarantees, it's on you as programmer using unsafe features to prove that you are actually using them safely |
| 2026-04-03 02:38:40 +0000 | <mesaoptimizer> | no I get that |
| 2026-04-03 02:37:48 +0000 | <geekosaur> | this is no different from https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch20-01-unsafe-rust.html |
| 2026-04-03 02:37:00 +0000 | <mesaoptimizer> | reminds me of LLM-generated text, which has triggered similar confusion and dicussion between I and a few of my acquaintances in the past, related to type theory and semantics. I guess its best I abandon reading this essay. |
| 2026-04-03 02:36:39 +0000 | abbies | (~abbies@tilde.guru) (Client Quit) |
| 2026-04-03 02:35:44 +0000 | <mesaoptimizer> | geekosaur: yeah that is now my current interpretation of it. it does seem quite confusing though |
| 2026-04-03 02:35:05 +0000 | <mesaoptimizer> | If you say something is pure, I expect that the language *guarantees* the semantics of it being pure, with the exception of the expression using, say, `unsafePerformIO`. Ergo, you cannot call those functions as those where 'the boundary cannot be violated' -- you already broke the semantic safety guarantees! |
| 2026-04-03 02:35:03 +0000 | <geekosaur> | given what you quoted, I think it's just making the point that, if you know what you're doing, you can hide known-safe uses of unsafe operations inside pure functions |
| 2026-04-03 02:35:01 +0000 | rekahsoft | (~rekahsoft@bras-base-orllon1103w-grc-20-76-67-111-168.dsl.bell.ca) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2026-04-03 02:34:50 +0000 | abbies | (~abbies@tilde.guru) |
| 2026-04-03 02:33:31 +0000 | <mesaoptimizer> | c_wraith: it seems like it is accurate for runST, if the type system itself guarantees semantic safety, yes. I do think that the claim is almost deliberately confusing when applied to any expression that contains an `unsafe*` expression though. |
| 2026-04-03 02:28:32 +0000 | merijn | (~merijn@62.45.136.136) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
| 2026-04-03 02:24:59 +0000 | humasect | (~humasect@dyn-192-249-132-90.nexicom.net) (Quit: Leaving...) |
| 2026-04-03 02:24:17 +0000 | merijn | (~merijn@62.45.136.136) merijn |
| 2026-04-03 02:22:12 +0000 | squid64 | (~user@fsf/member/squid64) (Ping timeout: 255 seconds) |
| 2026-04-03 02:17:54 +0000 | zzz | (~zero@user/zero) zero |
| 2026-04-03 02:13:20 +0000 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) |
| 2026-04-03 02:10:53 +0000 | <EvanR> | maybe mesaoptimizer wants to see also SafeHaskell |
| 2026-04-03 02:08:54 +0000 | <monochrom> | So even sophomores can understand that the negation of "all usages of unsafePerformIO are safe" is not "all usages of unsafePerformIO are unsafe". |
| 2026-04-03 02:08:49 +0000 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2026-04-03 02:08:43 +0000 | zzz | (~zero@user/zero) (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) |
| 2026-04-03 02:07:24 +0000 | <monochrom> | I will start with a conversation I overheard. Two 1st-year students were at a cafe discussing logic homework. The homework question was "what is the negation of: everyone wears glasses?". The students first said "is it: no one wears glasses?" But within 10 seconds, "no, that's not right". |
| 2026-04-03 01:57:54 +0000 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 255 seconds) |
| 2026-04-03 01:56:14 +0000 | xff0x | (~xff0x@fsb6a9491c.tkyc517.ap.nuro.jp) |
| 2026-04-03 01:53:27 +0000 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |