It can answer: "I'm a language model and don't have the capacity to help with that" if the question is not detailed enough. But supplied with more context, it can be very helpful.

I'm using gnuplot for plotting too (the actual gnuplot application not a library that uses gnuplot as its backend).

And I usually keep computation and plotting separate. Computation produces data files, and a gnuplot script generates plots. This separation of computation and plotting allows updating charts later if needed, collected data can be reused in other plots, and additional data analysis can be performed and charts can be augmented.

So I personally don't see many advantages from integrating chart generation into computational pipeline itself (except for computation monitoring or maybe when user response is needed to direct computation). Because of that, libraries that encourage charts generation from a computed array instead of dumping that data into persisted files feels like an anti-pattern to me.

Completely aeree. I keen computation steps (which create csv files) separate from charting steps. I use make to orchestrate pipelines. I also keep everything under source control, and insert git commit ids into every chart. This ensures that all the analysis and charts can be linked directly to the code used to produce them.

Somewhat agree but sometimes there is need to change/filter the data that goes into making the chart which is only realized after plotting it. Combining data and the figures into one "pipeline" makes it easy to iterate especially with exploratory data analysis. Regardless, this comment made me think about my general workflow which is usually combined. Appreciate this comment.

This is like an artificially created mass extinction event (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event ). Without it the ecosystem could maintain itself for very long time changing slowly and gradually. An extincting event wipes out most of the existing organisms, creating open niches to be populated with something new and maybe weird-looking.

jq feels like a much more robust tool than yq. I understand that the task of processing YAML is much harder than JSON, but:

- yq changed its syntax between version 3 and 4 to be more like jq (but not quite the same for some reason)

- yq has no if-then-else https://github.com/mikefarah/yq/issues/95 which is a poor design (or omission) in my opinion

So yq works when you need to process YAML, it can even handle comments quite well. Buy for pure JSON processing jq is a better tool.

A collection (e.g. an array or a hash map) that stores things. Maybe more than one collection like that, different for each type of entity: monsters, items, etc. (Separate code paths to handle these different types of things.)

Keeping indexes/keys for references, and loops over these collections can do a lot without any upfront complexity of an entity system.

I think, Wikimedia's fundraising message should include the amount of money they have, the expenses they expect for the coming years (with a basic breakdown of how it is going to be spent), as well as a link to a detailed report of how much money they got and how they were spent for the previous years. Basically be transparent, b/c someone might want to spend their money on a different web project they like.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but aren't non-profit organizations obligated to have much of this public? Because if they aren't, then the non-profit organization is incredibly ripe for fraud and I wonder how many have already chosen the NPO structure for ill intents.

The line, in some ways, is thin between a non-profit and a for-profit organization, when executives e.g. Mitchell Baker of Mozilla foundation, can command such large salaries and irresponsible spending. If abuse is as rife in non-profit structured organizations as it appears, IRS had better burnish its hammer and commit to resolutory action.

Yes, all tax-exempt organizations in the US are required to publish a copy of IRS Form 990. This includes a breakdown of income, expenses (including executive compensation), and assets.

The Wikimedia Foundation also publishes audited financial statements and a plan for the coming year. All of this is available here [1], which is the first result when you Google "wikipedia financials".

[1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/financial-reports/

Anecdotally, most non profits I’ve encountered operate in this way. Someone who is already wealthy, runs the show and pays themselves an egregious salary. They then hire lots of idealistic folks who either have money already or are ok being exploited due to idealistic bias.

No one who “works” for the non profit gets paid reasonably except the executives, who are paid exorbitant wages.

Wikimedia (the parent of Wikipedia) pays most people at Wikimedia very generously. The issue is most people involved, outside of tech, contribute little or nothing to Wikipedia which is the reason people are donating.

Sounds similar to Mozilla/MZLA with Thunderbird blog gimmicks of non-FOSS AI-generated wallpapers and a podcast. For an email client.

Echo Rita? From the context I assume it means large. Is that correct? What is the origin of that phrase?

I'm guessing "egregious"

Aye - not sure what language model came up with that (mobile keyboard)

Probably originated using speech to text recognition rather than a keyboard

I think, Wiki fundraising message should be more informational, not an emotional cry for help and money. I myself don't want to be manipulated, give me the numbers and what you want to do with my money.

> aren't non-profit organizations obligated to have much of this public?

Of course they are required to file tax returns with executive salaries that are public! Why would you not check it? This is how cynicism destroys a civilization. People let institutions die because someone told them they were already dead.

>The line, in some ways, is thin between a non-profit and a for-profit organization

No it isn't, it's very clear cut. To people in the industry, there's no connection between salaries and "profit". That's just not what the word means to them. Random people on the internet get confused about this because they (definitely not only you) don't have any specific idea of what "profit" means.

In fact, "profit" doesn't even mean "having extra money after paying expenses and salaries" in the non-profit business.

At a non-profit, when they have more money at the end of the year than at the beginning, it's called a "surplus" rather than a "profit", and it doesn't have to be paid out to pesky "shareholders" so the organization just keeps it and does whatever with it next year.

Instead of a triad of directors, executives and shareholders (theoretically) in charge, the directors and executives run it (or fight over it).

> but aren't non-profit organizations obligated to have much of this public

Yes, they are legally obligated to disclose their finances. OP’s point was it should be part of their fundraising message too.

Just to add to this, I wrote additional lecture notes for the class on OCaml I taught, which was largely based on this book.

http://a-nikolaev.github.io/fp/ - if anyone is interested in more learning resources.

No parentheses can be nice for cleaner pattern matching, e.g. something like this:

  match a, b with
  | 1, 2 -> x
  | _ -> y

pretty much

Simulated annealing comes to mind.

With a bit of string you'd have a game.

Doesn't really account for the varying sizes of holes.

Yeah. Maybe enclosing a particular type of hole could give more points or something like that. Also, one could put wooden pegs with numbers or other tokens in the holes to specify points that can be gained, or those tokens that can be collected. Such modifications can make the game more replayable. (One could also use this game as a sort of fortune-telling device, since solving a game requires randomization, and a player may end up in one or the other configuration at the end of the game.)