Indeed. [And caveat this whole comment with "as far as I understand" because this is maths and you can't be too careful…] The difference being that set theory is way more fundamental and abstract than most mathematicians ever need, so on the one hand it can be completely stated with only 8 or 9 axioms (and a system of first-order logic) but on the other hand it can take some ingenuity to encode a mathematical object as a set in a way that makes it easy to do stuff correctly and hard to mess up.
Most type theories take a more intuitive approach, so they do resemble something, namely, functional programming. Just a very rigorous approach to it. If you manage to construct a term of the correct type, you can be sure that it's what you think it is, whereas with set theory you have to constantly check yourself (if you require the rigor). The trade-off being that type theory requires you to work with complete rigor and reasoning at a low level can be more difficult than set-theoretic reasoning at a low level.
The TL;DR is that in type theory your constructions often look like what you actually want to do (and as a consequence you sometimes have to work directly with the underlying system, like a programming language), but in set theory there's a disconnect between the conceptual level and the underlying nitty-gritty logic.
It's always amusing when the Neovim users pretend to like Lua. It's not like Emacs Lisp is the best language out there (it's not, and I'd much rather Emacs was configured in Scheme, they're working on it...), but at least it's a good fit, by design, for configuration.
The finding held when the researchers accounted for people being right-handed, right-footed and right-eye dominant, and was seen in both male and female walkers.
You can go deeper. To prove anything, including the consistency or inconsistency of a theory, you need to work within a different system of axioms, and assume that it is consistent, etc.
even if it’s true everywhere forever, it might still not be provable, because Gödel.
No. Gödel's completeness theorem says that if something is true in every model of a (first-order) theory, it must be provable. Gödel's incompleteness theorem says that for every sufficiently powerful theory, there exists statements that are true sometimes, and these can't be provable.
That depends on whether you interpret "when" + past tense in English to also assert the reality of the temporal clause. The interpretation which allows the vacuous truth is, in my opinion, not even technically correct (by correct I mean aligns with actual spoken usage). It would amount to formalizing the sentence as
For all meetings between us, if said meeting is at a past time and it's the first meeting (i.e. before all other meetings), you promised at that time to give me all your money.
Which is indeed vacuously true, if there have been no past meetings, or even if the meetings aren't well-ordered in time :). On the surface this is a perfectly good interpretation, but it doesn't really align with real usage (though I would love to see an example of "when" + past tense being used this way, e.g. in a legal document).
On the other hand, most people would interpret "when" + past to assert that the event actually happened, which in this context means
I have met you before, a "first meeting" can be identified, and at that first meeting, you promised to give me all your money.
Or even more formally
There exist meetings between us at a past time, there exists such a unique meeting which is first, and, for all meetings, if said meeting is indeed the first, you promised me at that time to give me all your money.
And this can be reduced to
There exists a unique past meeting between us such that [it's first, and you promised to give me all your money at that time].
I think this interpretation is most closely aligned with how "when" is actually used in practice. "If" feels different, though. It can act as simple logical implication, logical equivalence, or anything in between, so it may be more interesting to study. Also note that all of this doesn't apply to "when" + simple present, which acts very similarly to "if".
The military censor in Israel does the exact same thing: ostensibly to prevent enemies from using the data to improve their systems, in reality as an attempt to keep domestic morale high (it only ever manages to slow down the inevitable fall, though).
Also, for people using some Readarr derivative with Hardcover metadata, how much of a pain is it to migrate from Goodreads to Hardcover (and is it worth it)?
Calibre-Web has always been interesting to me. Can it be deployed in such a way as to keep a Calibre content server also accessible? (e.g. for sync with the desktop app/Koreader/etc.)
And obviously the Piefed codebase is so politically and ethically agreeable… /s
No one likes the lemmy lead devs or their stances. But, to my knowledge, they just keep doing their own thing over at .ml and never channel it into their actual codebase.
When I first started here, I was on Kbin, and switched to lemmy because it was so much better. I considered switching to Piefed exactly because of these reasons you mentioned (I've already switched lemmy instances, comment history is not an issue for me), but when I looked into it there were so many just frankly aggravating things about the way it works and filters stuff by default (not to mention being written in Python, but that's completely tangential) that I couldn't do it.
Sure, lemmy developers have backwards principles. But at least their software doesn't. I completely get why someone would use Piefed instead, especially if they're trans or of some other demographic directly targeted by the lemmy developers, but I wouldn't do it myself (unless it gets better, of course).
No inherent reason to believe that, but seems like lying about this should be illegal. The belief is in Meta's compliance with the law rather than in its ethics, which, according to these claims, is unfortunately an unfounded belief.
Any law people please correct me, but this must be less of a problem in civil law in comparison to common law, right? As all decisions are derived primarily from the relevant codes
I see way more comics about comics about Nazis than comics about Nazis.