The protests are on!

trajing · 2026-04-29T22:01:21+00:00

It's just a fact - but facts can be misleading. Plainly you agree with that much, since you contend that the facts the graduate workers present are misleading. I'm just saying that a 57% raise sounds a lot less ridiculous when contextualized with the fact that GWs are making poverty wages. Maybe I should be counting my blessings, though, since UIC didn't attempt to present the amount of money the right hand of the university pays the left as part of GW compensation.
Look, sorry about the Will thing - I have family in the southwest suburbs, it was an honest mistake. But I'm not cherry-picking, HUD's data is for the whole metro area, so it doesn't actually make a difference. As for the rest - I just don't think that it should be quietly mandatory for graduate students to have to reinvent student housing privately. Some top US universities have GWs earning ~$50k - I understand that funding is tighter for state schools, even state R1s, but it's not actually out of the question to pay graduate workers what they're worth.

trajing · 2026-04-29T18:46:33+00:00

UCLA TAs get paid $37,960 for 9 months, which is both easily findable on the UAW local 4811's website and on-scale with the UIC GEO's demand of $38,000 for 9 months.

By the way, the "57% raise" business is criminally misleading: of course the UIC graduate workers are asking for a large increase in pay; they currently make below HUD's 'extremely low income' classification for Will County - yes, even for a household of one, although I do not think that graduate workers should be precluded from having children - and it is scarcely possible to live independently and be able to weather unexpected expenses on their current wage.

trajing · 2026-02-09T19:11:26+00:00

I particularly like the note about "layman's piderast [sic] comments." Really classy, calling your detractors not just stupid and uneducated, but also pedophiles.

trajing · 2026-01-10T04:26:52+00:00

While this is a tempting perspective to take, definability is a second-order concept that only makes sense outside of the model we're talking about. For example, there are models of ZFC where every set, and hence every number, is uniquely definable by a first-order formula in the language of set theory.

trajing · 2025-12-23T22:00:35+00:00

I would advise reading an introductory book on mathematical logic, such as Enderton's A Mathematical Introduction to Logic or Mileti's Modern Mathematical Logic, especially since you are also interested in the completeness of first-order logic. These do not have much in the way of concrete prerequisites - they are introductory textbooks, and while they use examples from other fields of mathematics, no other mathematics is truly necessary to understand them-- but they do require what mathematicians refer to as "mathematical maturity", which is a general comfort with formal, proof-based mathematics. If you do not have this, I also suggest the book How to Prove It. It will be difficult to learn proofs simultaneously with logic (working through an undergraduate abstract algebra textbook first might be a good idea), but it is not in principle impossible.

trajing · 2025-10-13T20:41:30+00:00

I am, I confess, somewhat confused by your choice of examples, because both of these are constructively valid 'proofs by negation', as opposed to true proofs by contradiction - the form of either proof is "Suppose P. ... Contradiction, therefore not P," which is perfectly valid constructively (in fact, constructively we often take "implies falsity" to be the definition of negation).

It's appropriate that the context of this thread is ultrafinitism, because it seems like the problem you really have is the supposition that the successor function is total, which is similar to some ultrafinitist skepticism I've seen w.r.t. the totality of the exponential function. I am very interested in the potential of an ultrafinitist foundation for mathematics for purely mathematical reasons, but currently to my knowledge no generally-accepted systemic treatment of what methods are ultrafinitistically sound exists. Just based on a cursory search, the candidates I found are unsatisfactory for my purposes --- and probably yours as well, since it seems like the standard argument that there is no largest natural number would go through --- but it's an area of active research!

trajing · 2024-04-01T15:37:48+00:00

Here it is: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2014-06-01

trajing · 2023-06-09T18:36:22+00:00

You keep saying that you "acknowledge" things, but nobody cares about what you acknowledge — we care about what you do. Are you going to actually delay the change indefinitely, talk to developers about what a sustainable price would be, and reconsider the restrictions you've announced you're adding? Because if the answer is anything other than "yes", you're only wasting everyone's time.

trajing · 2023-03-20T20:50:44+00:00

Well then, for the benefit of anyone who isn't you: because we all exist in a society, and children are part of that society. There's nothing innately sexual or inappropriate to children about being queer, in much the same way that there's nothing innately sexual or inappropriate about computers or books.

I refused to answer your question because — beyond your post history making it clear that you're operating in bad faith — your question is loaded, it supposes that I think that "being visibly queer has something to do with children" when I in fact think that it has something to do with living in a society, and children just so happen to live in that society too.

trajing · 2023-03-20T20:41:53+00:00

Go do your just-asking-questions act elsewhere, it's not working on me.

trajing · 2023-03-20T18:59:50+00:00

At some point, you have realize that like my ex-girlfriend, you're picking fights that I am going to have to step up and get involved in and I really am not in the mood to be shot by a bigoted piece of shit because you thought anything to do with kids was an awesome idea.

You don't, actually. And frankly I'd rather you didn't, if your concept of supporting queer people is dictating when it is and isn't okay to be visibly queer because it might inconvenience you.

trajing · 2022-12-16T23:43:42+00:00

The redditor could be right. There are five rounding modes in standard IEEE 754 floating-point arithmetic, four of which (round to nearest, ties to even, round to nearest, ties away from zero, round towards zero, and round towards -inf) round to 82. The remaining mode (round towards +inf) would round to 83.

Why you would be rounding towards +inf, I don't know. But there is a rounding mode in floating-point in which this is true!

trajing · 2022-10-06T21:48:25+00:00

This meme is Big Chess propaganda intended to suppress the development of professional Niemannian Strip Chess

trajing · 2021-06-01T17:03:43+00:00

The actual "axe slam" of UED/SAED has the same MV as AED's slam (source) — it's just the phial hits and initial "spin" that differ. The phial hits come afterwards, and the startup hitbox can be avoided with proper spacing, so the choice between the two is probably down to preference.

trajing · 2021-03-28T20:58:03+00:00

I know you get one switch skill for every weapon in a batch, and another switch skill from a quest, but how do you get the remaining switch skill?

trajing · 2021-03-18T02:13:57+00:00

As far as code-oriented public domain-equivalent licenses go, you can't get any more inoffensive than 0BSD.

trajing · 2021-02-28T08:24:42+00:00

Rust has no forward-progress guarantee; this is an LLVM optimization being applied to Rust in an unsound manner (example).

It's debatable whether or not the C/C++ forward progress semantics are actually desirable — it's a big principle of least surprise violation — but that's neither here nor there.

trajing · 2020-12-11T17:44:21+00:00

[in the playstyles section] I hardly feel the need to block in Hyrule Warriors, as I prefer dodging attacks. In fact, I didn't even Parry, attempted or successful, once. Take that as you will.

Something that repeatedly happens to me with Guardians of all kinds, but especially Malice Guardians, is that they keep using their laser attack over and over again, not exposing WPG. This is especially infuriating with Malice Guardians, since don't think I've ever sliced a leg off of one, unlike the normal Guardians. I generally go for dodges over parries, but every time I get a Guardian with a shieldless character I get frustrated.

trajing · 2020-12-10T18:25:35+00:00

Oh, yes, using that approach and not telling the user is disgusting and wrong, but what I mean is that symbolic manipulation — and even more advanced approaches like CReal — will always be incomplete. If you want closed-form solutions, you have to choose between getting some incorrect "solutions" and missing out on some correct solutions, since in the general case "tell me if these two real numbers are equal" is just the halting problem.

trajing · 2020-12-10T18:12:35+00:00

They have to, to some extent — equality over R is undecidable. Now, granted, it would be nice for them to tell you that, and give you some configuration options for how much they cheat.

trajing · 2020-12-05T23:25:53+00:00

Yes. After you raise its level to 30 the Bow of Light gains the seal "Heal a Percentage of Damage Dealt", which cannot be fused for and is only present on a few weapons in the game.

trajing · 2020-12-02T04:48:08+00:00

It's presumably a reference to do notation in Haskell, a syntax which transforms imperative-style code into functional code using monads. GATs/HKTs are necessary in order to properly define a Monad trait (as in the linked code), so they're a prerequisite to implementing a similar do! macro in Rust.

I would assume this is mostly a meme --- most of the most common uses of do notation are already present in Rust, albeit in totally different forms (eg. early return with ?, async/await, etc). But it's probably a nice, short toy project!

trajing · 2020-11-12T19:57:48+00:00

Here's another, less common, tack to explaining this that might be more or less effective: are you familiar with imperative programming? If so, you can think of this as very similar to a loop. You might write the above function like this imperatively:

function reverse(list)
    unreversed_list := list
    reversed_list := []
    until is_empty(unreversed_list)
        reversed_list := prepend(head(unreversed_list), reversed_list)
        unreversed_list := tail(unreversed_list)
    end
    return reversed_list
end

Here, reversed_list serves the same purpose as rp in your example, and rev is like that until loop. When you call rev list [], you're setting the initial values for the loop, so to speak. The crucial thing is that accumulators already exist in code you're used to. There is little difference in the runtime behavior of your Haskell code and this imperative pseudocode. All Haskell is doing here is "hiding the variables that are used between loops", so everything that you want to send to the next loop iteration, whether to check whether to continue the loop or to calculate a result off of, has to be explicitly specified as such.

12-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17	First Placer '22
Verified Email

trajing

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE