Wait, the lens flare effect is because of my astigmatism?

It could just be a joke about having younger kids that don’t know any better yet. But yeah I mean it’s not particularly funny regardless.

That’s… a really dumb definition. And why is C# right in the middle but Java’s towards obsolete and toy lang? They both compile to byte code and are overall extremely similar.

Haskell’s also not there. I was ready to criticize any quadrant it was put in heh. But that’s probably mostly because the axes are kinda bad.

Sure, I just meant that I have no idea how it’s at all relevant.

Any number expressible in ternary, or a base 3 number system, is expressible in binary with a very simple formula to convert between the two. Binary just requires more digits. Fundamentally, a ternary computer is the same as a binary computer in terms of the problems that are decideable.

Ternary computers have been around for a very long time. They are not new, and I fail to see how they are in any way relevant to AGI (which, to be clear, is something that exists purely in the realm of science fiction and not something we’re actually going to be accomplishing any time soon). Ternary computing is certainly interesting and can offer potential performance improvements over binary computers in terms of speed/power efficiency for certain specialized applications, but it’s not some magical new computing paradigm or something. Oh, and by the way, there’s multiple ways of making ternary systems: -1, 0, and 1 is just one system (called balanced ternary).

Also, fuzzy logic (or logic that accounts for uncertainty) has been around for a very long time, and in fact, is exactly what neural networks are using right now. It’s encoded using floating point numbers between 0 and 1, which, in binary, are encoded using 32 or 64 bits (or more rarely, 16 bits). Again, not anything new.

And I have no idea what you’re talking about with analog.

It looks pretty normal to me as a professional Haskeller, though I suppose it’s perhaps slightly cleaner to write it as conditionalBaptize p = fromMaybe p $ baptize p. It’s largely just a matter of taste and I’d accept either version when reviewing an MR.

Edit: I just thought of another version that actually is far too clever and shouldn’t be used:

conditionalBaptize = ap fromMaybe baptize, making use of the monad instance for ->. But yeah, don’t do this.

Dunno what to tell ya, it’s great.

Just gonna drop this here: http://visidata.org/

Blows excel out of the water, at least for tabular data (which, frankly, is what all financial data should be… Cell-based formulas are a mistake).