My company's site has also been getting hammered by Brazilian IPs. They're focused on a single filterable table of fewer than 100 rows, querying it with various filter combinations every second of every minute of every day.

You can't redefine functions in PHP.

There are extensions which allow you to redefine even constants.

I also have this issue. What I do is work in a separate branch and cherry pick commits over to main then rebase.

I bet that what you describe could be implemented with stashes and scripts run on hooks, but that feels like fighting the tool too much. There's probably something we're missing?

You can take the SAT as many times as you want and only submit your best score, so the pressure isn't the same.

Or, like me, you can completely abscond from the test and still achieve

What statements about properties of randomly generated code snippets would be useful for coding LLMs? You would need to generate text explaining what each snippet does, but that would require an existing coding LLM, so any IP concerns would persist.

Yeah, but couldn't some system be built that understands what the differnt code snippets do by compiling them or whatever?

>In order for an AI to evaluate the effect of a small molecule on the brain, it would have to... simulate the operation of a human brain in a simulated environment.

Humans aren't capable of doing this, but still make useful drug discoveries. AI can be empowered to conduct research in the real world, it doesn't need to simulate everything.

We start by doing them on mice (well, in vitro first, mice as the first in vivo), who have no say in the matter; and as mice are only rough analogues of humans, the human trials are still cautious once the animal trials are over.

We also develop a lot of drugs with a which have side-effects, which will is probably better than no drugs in most cases, the side effects are because it's a lot of educated guesswork.

So long as you consider "empty strings" to be "strings" in the first place. String of what?

It's like saying you have an "empty cup of water".

As long as you consider cups of water and cups of milk be different objects (i.e. cups are not interchangeable, and you can't just throw out milk and fill it with water) it is a completely sensible statement.

For example, in Jewish religious families, there are often two sets of kitchen utensils - for meat products and for dairy/other products, since mixing those makes the food unfit for consumption by a religious person. In this situation, if you said "I have an empty meat pot" and somebody answered you "No, I need an empty milk pot, give me another one!" - it would make a total sense. Even though both pots are empty, they are not the same kind of pot for their users.

Similarly, if a string is a sequence of certain objects (characters, bytes, runes, graphemes, whatever you please) then empty sequence of such objects is not the same as an empty sequence of other objects - you could append a character to it, but you can't append a database connection to it, for example, and expect something sane to happen.

So yes, "empty cup of water" is exactly what it is, because in most programming languages, empty cups are not all alike. In some languages, there are sequence types that are agnostic towards their elements, and then an empty sequence of that kind wouldn't be a sequence of anything - it'd be just a separate entity. But strings rarely are implemented this way, for many practical reasons.

People can come up with whatever weird believes they want, that doesn't mean this actually makes sense.

You entirely missed the point of the example. The point is not that you are supposed to embrace their beliefs. The point is that object that are all alike in one system can be very different in another, and if you assume they are all alike, you will misunderstand what is going on. Such as, if you assume that empty string is just "nothing", you will misunderstand how strings - and in general, typed sequences - work in most programming languages.

It's like a bad student that when the teacher says "assume the train departs from the station at 9 am", to formulate a math problem, objects "but the train actually departs from our station at 10am!". Way to miss the point!

You just... Blew my mind.

So, but wait... Is the genitive "of water" functioning like an assertion? "All of the contents of the cup are water."

And wouldn't that assertion, in the case where the cup has no contents, be a vacuous truth?[0]

In other words, a cup of water, if it actually has water in it, cannot also be a cup of magma. But there's nothing stopping an cup with no contents at all being "of" both.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuous_truth

It holds true mathematically speaking. You can make (mathematical) sets of everything but there's only one empty set.

It's a bit like that with pointers in C: a char* is not a int* but null pointers are convertible to any pointer type.

It's time to put down the encyclopedia and pick up Plato and Aristotle

What's not mentioned in the comment you're replying to is the postgraduate-level type theory you need to learn and constantly refine to work with these languages at a practical level. So be aware that even if you put the time into learning them, it's unlikely you'll get to use them at work.

Look up Coq, Agda, Lean, and Idris. I would start with Coq, it's the most used. Idris is more like Haskell and programmer-oriented.

Edit: Nevermind, apparently they were just talking about Haskell...

I'm more thinking in terms of logical primitives for the design of modules and components that can be composed, decomposed and recombined. I'm thinking less about proof based correctness.

Chronic post-vasectomy pain syndrome negatively impacts quality of life in 1-2% of cases. Even a small chance of chronic pain should be weighed carefully against the benefits and alternatives.

The Collatz conjecture is undecidable, so no Turing machine like you describe exists.

The Collatz conjecture isn't a decision problem. The natural corresponding decision problem (given an x, does the conjecture hold when starting at all positive integers k less than x) is decidable in constant time.

We don't know what specifically the deciding machine is, but it is either the one that always returns Yes or the one that returns whether or not x is below some finite value. Either case can be solved by only reading a bounded number of bits from the input.

With some work, one can eventually generalize Collatz to make an undecidable problem; this is more or less the basis for FRACTRAN. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FRACTRAN