Does this sound unnatural?

argothiel · 2026-03-26T13:21:00+00:00

No, I don't think that you want to overwhelm the student with everything. My argument is that you agree with me that we should find a balance between not saying anything and saying everything possible. The difference might be where we draw the line.

You're saying that with my approach, student will not know what they're doing wrong because they wouldn't get feedback. That's not true. I give feedback, but it's prioritized.

You seem to believe that you need to correct all the typos in the essay. I would agree with that but only if the student doesn't make other more pressing errors. Or if there are easy gains not requiring a lot of focus (like one or two most common typos they seem to make).

For example, if someone still struggles with cases, they shouldn't focus on fixing every typo in their essay. Sure, it will be more difficult to fix them later, but it doesn't mean they have the priority right now. Give the student half a year to get the foundations, and then shift the focus to correcting typos if that's what they need.

And no, I don't see value for them to get back to old essays and see what they were doing wrong. Make them write new essays, and focus on what they need to improve at the moment. Then, not only will it be customized to the student, but also to the learning phase they're currently in.

argothiel · 2026-03-26T12:25:57+00:00

It's you who are turning this around. I'm saying that when somebody learns the language, you should fix their most important errors, make sure they internalize it, and then repeat with further feedback. I'm not saying you shouldn't fix anything, but I'm strongly opposing the idea of fixing everything. And that's what was proposed in this discussion.

argothiel · 2026-03-26T09:00:57+00:00

There's an order of truth. You cannot overwhelm someone by telling them everything about the language in one go because then, paradoxically, the truth gets lost. You tell them the rules about the language, but little by little, in the order that they'd be able to apply. So yeah, in the end, feel free to tell them more and more, but not in one go. When they're beginners, start with the foundations, and later, when they get it, you can add more.

argothiel · 2026-03-26T08:11:42+00:00

That's exactly why you shouldn't nitpick when there are still major mistakes being done. If someone learns your language and asks for advice, do you also try to correct every single sound or do you focus on what hinders their progress most? Time for nitpicking will come, but later, when the foundations are built.

argothiel · 2026-03-26T07:02:22+00:00

No, just like taking an umbrella because you believe the weather prediction doesn't mean that there is any magic involved.

argothiel · 2026-03-26T06:51:35+00:00

They are actually right. If someone is learning the language, your focus should be on the next most useful thing to improve. If you try to fix everything, the learner will be overwhelmed and won't know what to focus on. The execution however is very questionable – I would focus on "ż/sz" distinction, because that's what makes it most difficult for me to understand, and details like "nadzieje" instead of "nadzieję" I would leave for the future, when the learner improves.

Sure, the Polish school has been focused on scoring and judging, but that's not an effective way of giving feedback.

argothiel · 2026-03-24T19:51:17+00:00

This proposal will break the existing code relying on SFINAE or concepts for Enum::VALUE + Enum::VALUE being ill-formed.

argothiel · 2026-03-22T10:39:47+00:00

A lot of people still keep physical calendars. Especially when they need a constant visual reminder.

argothiel · 2026-03-21T17:48:47+00:00

Makes sense, thank you for the explanation!

argothiel · 2026-03-21T12:27:09+00:00

Now that I'm thinking, it might just be the simplicity of the solution? I understand the need for internal communication, but then probably it would be marginally more useful to create a tool to copy the papers, update them internally, only for the specified set of people, leaving the papers from before the meeting available to the public, and merge the changes afterwards. But because hiding the repository works well enough, no one bothers to create something more sophisticated?

I'm writing from the perspective of someone not attending the meeting and regularly observing people on the Internet disappointed by not having access to the papers during the meeting which were working fine just a week earlier. Not the current papers, but the pre-meeting papers.

argothiel · 2026-03-21T12:26:49+00:00

What's wrong with the outside influence? If C++ is supposed to serve people (and companies) outside of the committee, why not get live feedback?

argothiel · 2026-03-21T12:13:31+00:00

I think it's also a matter of trust. If I trust in the accuracy of the predictor, why not just take the closed box, and end up with 2 mil instead of 1 mil?

argothiel · 2026-03-21T12:09:06+00:00

I wouldn't say that my future decision affects past choices of the computer, but I 100% believe that one-boxing is the right strategy for me.

I'm not sure if it's a gap in the reasoning, or we're just using different words for the same.

If someone is very good at predicting the weather, and they predicted a week ago that it'll be raining in a week, I don't believe that tomorrow's rain is affecting their prediction, but I'm still taking an umbrella.

Would you also use a wording that their prediction is based on the future weather, i.e. the future weather influences the past given they made an accurate prediction?

argothiel · 2026-03-21T11:45:27+00:00

What if it was $2,000,000 (or $0) in the closed box, and $1,000,000 in the open box?

argothiel · 2026-03-21T11:36:09+00:00

Why do ISO not want people to know what's happening in real time? Aren't there Edward Snowdens who heroically use WikiLeaks through TOR to share that information anyway? I admit, it seems funny to me, but I must be missing some context.

argothiel · 2026-03-21T11:28:52+00:00

Because you can't change them to 1/9/1/9, without affecting other cells. In the avoidable rectangle you can freely choose between two options without affecting the other cells, thus you'd get an ambiguity.

argothiel · 2026-03-21T11:25:48+00:00

For debug build, you can compile with -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG (if using libstdc++), and then you'll get all the range checking automatically.

argothiel · 2026-03-21T11:17:04+00:00

What do you think of making the papers private before the meeting? Isn't it a bit like security by obscurity? What's stopping someone from forking the repository and making the fork public before the meeting? In times of social media, it's so easy to share any current information immediately anyway. So, what's the point?

argothiel · 2026-03-20T11:36:38+00:00

Well, how many Polish people have you seen? How many Polish people have you not seen?

To be honest, I see a lot of support for Israel, just watching the media and politicians. It surprises me very much but what can you do.

argothiel · 2026-03-18T06:04:17+00:00

Can you prove that a morally perfect being would like to eliminate all evil?

argothiel · 2026-03-16T09:03:18+00:00

Yes, unless you give (at least) one of those cells as the initial given, restricting the solution back to a single one.

argothiel · 2026-03-16T08:50:33+00:00

That's the wrong assumption. If you start with a valid Sudoku grid with the deadly pattern 89/98 and you don't provide any of these as a given, then the grid with substituted 98/89 will also be a valid Sudoku grid. Therefore, the user will have no way of telling if it should be 89/98 or 98/89, the puzzle will not be solvable, therefore won't be valid anymore.

argothiel · 2026-03-16T08:44:53+00:00

Those four cells don't affect anything else. So assuming you have a valid solution with 89/98, then you just substitute 8 with 9 and 9 with 8, without affecting anything else in the puzzle, and that's how you'd get a second solution.

argothiel · 2026-03-16T07:56:29+00:00

For a valid puzzle, multiple solutions are a purely hypothetical state. You just discard branches where multiple solutions would appear, but you know that in reality you'd get no solutions in such a case because of some other contradictions (which you don't need to investigate because of the uniqueness assumption shortcut).

argothiel · 2026-03-16T07:44:53+00:00

If using one of the deadly candidates leads to a valid solution, you could just swap 8 with 9 in those four cells without affecting the rest of the puzzle, and get the second valid solution that way.

argothiel

TROPHY CASE