We Fell Out of Love with Next.js and Back in Love with Ruby on Rails
hardcover.app
Run LLMs on Apple Neural Engine (ANE)
github.com
Show HN: Free, 100% in browser PDF editor
breezepdf.com
RethinkDNS Resolver That Deploys to CF Workers, Deno Deploy, Fastly, Fly.io
github.com
Warren Buffett to Step Down from Berkshire Hathaway at Year-End
bloomberg.com
N8n – Flexible AI workflow automation for technical teams
n8n.io
Lessons from Building a Translator App That Beats Google Translate and DeepL
dingyu.me
Seeking an Answer: Why can't HTML alone do includes?
frontendmasters.com
Stellar Sleep (YC S23) is hiring a product engineer in SF
ycombinator.com
'I found your dad': The mystery of a missing climber
espn.com
Closures in Tcl
world-playground-deceit.net
Why I ever wrote Clojure
thesoftwarephilosopher.com
Spain-Portugal blackouts: what happened
theconversation.com
The Craft 001: A conversation about craft, code, and freedom with Neal Agarwal
workingtheorys.com
Connomore64: Cycle exact emulation of the C64 using parallel microcontrollers
github.com
Show HN: Pipask – safer pip without compromising convenience
github.com
Deadly Screwworm Parasite's Comeback Threatens Texas Cattle, US Beef Supply
bloomberg.com
Show HN: Use Third Party LLM API in JetBrains AI Assistant
github.com
We know a little more about Amazon's super-secret satellites
arstechnica.com
I prefer a slightly different algebra of patterns, which works nicely[0] as long as sets of clauses are simplicial[1], which is to say that if any two clauses have patterns that properly intersect, the intersection also occurs as a pattern in the set of clauses: clauses match if their pattern, and no more precise[2] patterns, do.
In exchange for that complication on the structure of well-formed sets of clauses, we get the following simplifications: (a) default need not be special, but is expressed by _[3], and (b) the programmer need only use positive patterns[4].[0] as with Dijkstra's def'ns of if..fi and do..od it's possible to extend the order-independence/commutativity to non-simplicial sets of clauses without losing runtime determinativeness but at the cost of introducing arbitrariness.
[1] this is not quite accurate to the geometric use; does anyone have a better adjective?
[2] pedantically speaking, a pattern P is more specific than a pattern Q iff P is congruent to P & Q.
[3] as all clauses, not just default, exclude more specific matches
[4] negative patterns might still be useful for codegen, but they needn't be part of the developer experience. I still need to look at https://lirias.kuleuven.be/retrieve/262314/ to see how it relates to all this...