Tiago

Prakash Panangaden gives the first plenary at Bellairs ‘25

Please stop calling your elected representatives. They’re very old and very confused, and it does them no good to get all riled up

lmao no, TikTok users are not moving to Bluesky. They would literally rather learn Mandarin than learn how to read a feed of text posts. This is a millennial retirement home.

Imagine still believing that America is the land of the free when they’re doing this to a journalist at a press conference

Seminar Refreshments

Everyone is happy with their parachute until they need it to open.

A doctor’s letter to United Healthcare for denying nausea meds for a child on chemo

Model Checking by Baier and Katoen — start them young

This means that whenever I need to do anything more complex with a set, I need to convert it to a list, do my thing, and then convert the list to a new set of whatever resulting type.

So what do the Pros do? Is Base.Set much better / does it fix this? Is there a workaround for PPX? Thank you! (4/4)

3. I guess as a consequence of 1, there are no functions between types of sets. For example, map is extremely weak because it can only be an endofunction. (3/4)

1. Having to declare a module for every possible type of set is quite annoying.

2. Almost no PPX derivers work with it. And by extension, they won't work with whatever types you make that use it. (2/4)

A question for the OCaml pros: How do you deal with Stdlib.Set?

There are three things that always bring a lot of friction whenever I use it. (1/4)

If you want to do a PhD on getting LLMs to spit out code that behaves as intended, come to
@ucsd_cse
www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/...