You must never have faced a situation where you can't believe your eyes. It takes a certain level of - dare I say it - intelligence and maturity to consider that it's more likely you've made a mistake than that you've made a huge breakthrough.
In HN terms - it's never the compiler. Yes, very occasionally it might be the compiler, but you're better off assuming it's a bug in your code.
You must never have faced a situation where you can't believe your eyes. It takes a certain level of - dare I say it - intelligence and maturity to consider that it's more likely you've made a mistake than that you've made a huge breakthrough.
In HN terms - it's never the compiler. Yes, very occasionally it might be the compiler, but you're better off assuming it's a bug in your code.
> In HN terms - it's never the compiler. Yes, very occasionally it might be the compiler, but you're better off assuming it's a bug in your code.
Conversely:
- if your company has an internal compiler team then it's likely the compiler because they broke it.
- if it's not the compiler, you're not pushing it hard enough.
statistical parrot indeed, just like the one which built the counterexample. maybe.
Or they just have more scepticism than some of present public.
Hmm, which of these is simple pattern matching?
1) refuting the Jacobian conjecture
2) keep repeating the same disproven statement, because your priors can’t be affected by new evidence