This is a viewpoint commonly held by students who were exposed to imperative programming before having any class in maths. However it shouldn't survive long after that.

I just moved to macOS for the first time, and my only way to adapt to its multi-tasking has been keeping exactly one window per open application, never zero or more than one. The fact that Finder can't be treated like that is a real pain. I will focus on it essentially randomly, and it will disrupt my intended interaction.

I don't get the reasoning behind the zero-window cmd-tab interaction, but if it is there I guess that there's a reason behind it?

On macOS you can have an app that is running without any windows open and you use the menu bar to invoke different commands in that app. This is why cmd+tab allows you to switch to an app that doesn't have any window open, essentially cmd+tab is an app switcher and not a window switcher. If you want a window switcher you can use AltTab an open source window switcher for macOS.

Why is there no finder specific setting that if it receives focus and has no window open it automatically creates the default one?

The current behavior is such a terrible user experience.

I don't know how a company as big as apple can leave everyday things in such a terrible state.

By coincidence I was just having a look at the work by the same author on languages based on Interaction Nets. Incredibly cool work, although the main repos seem to have been silent in the last couple of months? This work however is much older and doesn't seem to follow the same approach.

The author is working on a program synthesizer using interaction nets/calculus, which should be released soon. It sounds quite interesting:

https://x.com/VictorTaelin/status/1907976343830106592

WebMonkeys feels a bit like array programming, you create buffers and then have a simple language to perform operations on those buffers.

HVM is one of the most interesting developments in programming languages that I know off. I just don't know if it will prove to be relevant for the problem space it is trying to address. It is a very difficult technology that is trying to solve another very complex problem (AI) by seemingly sight stepping the issues. Like you have to know linear algebra and statistics to do ML, and they are saying: yes and you have to know category theory too.

FYI, just in case you didn't know, it's "side-stepping," not "sight-stepping."

Thanks for introducing me to the concept of higher-order virtual machines.

I am very intrigued by this. It all seems AI generated. This same HN account posted another repo full of promises and which looks filled with AI generated stubs. What's going on? How did this reach the first page?

At least the author[0] seems to have some clout behind him. However, given that his code doesn't even compile and the premise seems massively over-stated, I wonder how his credentials (Stanford, etc) can even be genuine.

[0] https://mateopetel.xyz/

Probably best to flag such nonsense.

Add to this that propositional logic (the language in which we express SAT) is a versatile language to code problems in. Finding cliques in a graph is also NP complete, but it is less natural to use it as a language to code other problems.

> Add to this that propositional logic (the language in which we express SAT) is a versatile language to code problems in

is it though? You can't express some basic loop in propositional logic, right?

Loops are part of a coded solution, not the problem. With SAT you encode the problem / solution space itself.

I guess that might be it, but it's still very surprising to hear for people that were around the internet before or around the early 2000s

If one is to believe that there is no other usage for a Bitcoin besides having a digital ticket worth 60k+ USD, then those people selling those tickets would be organizing one of these schemes. In order for it not to be so, you need to believe in there being some other usage to a Bitcoin (indeed, there is more to your Nvidia stock than its counter value in USD).

> indeed, there is more to your Nvidia stock than its counter value in USD

With large percentage ownership, I agree. Namely board positions and votes. Failing that though, honest question, what is the value other than speculation (and the belief that asset will yield a greater return than other assets, or will serve as a hedge, all of which really are speculations with no greater value other than the countert value in USD). Hence, could you expound on what those other values are? (In the common case of someone that owns less than 1M shares)

The use is that they think the digital ticket will outperform the s&p 500 exponentially.

This totally aligns with my personal experience. I am Italian, most of my "For you" tweets used to be in Italian. Recently a lot of US, pro-GOP content sneaked in; stuff along the lines of: guy explaining that his wife must vote as he wish (i.e. Trump); anti-abortion lady praising Musk; anything (good or bad) mentioning Musk. I am sure I am doing something wrong on my side and started falling to rage-bait, but I am equally sure I didn't initiate any interest in this kind of content.

That's really cool. Having spent most of my time in (european) academia, I wonder how this kind of research can be carried out outside of academic institutions.

Even though it was supposed to be "the last version of Windows". Is there an official reason for the change in strategy?

Wild speculation: Version envy. For a while, it looked like Windows and macOS were both going to stick to version 10. Then, after twenty years of macOS being 10.x, they announced a version 11, and one year later Windows followed suit.

Money?

This is not an explanation, money was the reason before too.