casion's comments

That's fine.

:)

You've created problems that don't exist. They're concerns that most people don't have.

You don't know what to say. That's fine.

You might be wasting their time. That's fine.

You might not know how to end the conversation. That's fine.

It's ok to be awkward. It's ok to be honest. It's ok to bother people as long as you take their feedback appropriately. It's ok to walk away without saying anything.

The more often that you talk to people and actively reflect on the REAL outcomes of it, the sooner you'll realize those concerns aren't shared by most other people.

Unsure if sarcasm, but lots of people do that. I do it every day.

Some folks enjoy driving.

There's more clojure users than ever before and the team is active and afaik larger than ever before.

Things just mature and hype isn't as cool when you heard it 5 years ago.

The heat index on my weather station (in tampa) hit 141f yesterday. I'm in Arizona right now and it feels positively delightful.

Average salary for a developer in India is about 1/10th of that.

> mostly

Yeah, but here's an exception!

They do not. Source: Have owned a few (of both brands)

Lambo is almost fundamentally (and certainly originally) the anti-ferrari.

Alternatively, most magicians are intimately familiar with psychology and more knowledgable on how to appear as they wish in a context where appearance is being measured...

Since you know, that's their job.

That's the point. You can at least filter out the rif-raf because you'll recognize yourself in those people quickly.

It's a total nonstarter for me. Bring unsure that I can find a working charging station, and have to go out if my way to take that risk sucks.

I've rented quite a few EVs long term and if you have to travel 200+ mile trips even 5% of the time they incite terrifying range anxiety in some (most) parts of the country (US).

If you are always or very nearly always under 100 miles a day, they're fine. Most _people_ live in that realm, but most _areas_ in the US are full of people who do not.

Who is "we" in your sentence? I've never heard of this

Not identical, but close and quite excellent: https://www.lazarus-ide.org

Heh, I knew all the names by the photo... maybe I should leave the house one day.

You have the idea, yes.

Yes, and like most language features it's not about the feature, it's about having _that feature_ in a language with other benefits.

Think generics in Go or concurrency (effects) in OCAML or smart pointers in Rust. Not at all unique things, but having them in the language with other benefits is worth some discussion as it may provide extra leverage in context.

To give a shallow overview, transducers allow you to define steps in collection processing _per item_ rather than having collection processing as a series of transformations of collections.

So rather than processing the collection, passing it to the next function that processes the collection, passing it to the next... etc.. consuming all the CPU and memory that involves, you can define steps that are applied for each item in the collection thereby having the iteration through the collection happen once.

These steps (transducers) are also composable and reusable.

I suspect you know this, consider this a basic explanation for other people reading.

> There's only one sum of all the proper divisors for any given integer.

This really seems to assume that uniqueness is an implicit property of each integer of such sums. I don't understand how you would know know that or how to discover that other than "you couldn't get the answers we're showing you unless you assumed that".

> In particular the set does not allow for repetition (you cannot count a proper divisor twice).

How would I know this having read the description/definition?

I checked multiple definitions for proper divisor and untouchable number before I wrote my post and I could not find anything explicit.

Thank you for the explanation btw. Still a bit hung up on how I could have figured that myself given the information presented.

Could someone explain this better? The definition in the wiki page appears to be leaving out some information that makes it necessary to understand.

Why is 2 + 2 + 1 = 5 not sufficient? It doesn't say unique proper divisors. The definition of proper divisors doesn't seem to explain either.

i.e. why is 10 not an untouchable number but 5 is?

Specifically given the precise definition given, anything should be touchable as 1 is a proper divisor, and you can sum any number of 1s to "touch" a number. Clearly we're missing some implicit restriction.