bss03

Not usually an issue for me. My heartburn trigger used to be acids (e.g. pizza sauce) too close to bed, but after I lost some weight, I basically don't get heartburn anymore.

That said, I very much avoid anything with much hot spice. Anything that I think might burn on the way out doesn't make it in.

I think you are supposed to have a couple of vegetable sides to go with a meat+cheese+pasta lasagna.

(But, sure, lasagna is a pretty flexible term, you could make one where an appropriately sized portion is a complete, balanced meal.)

There's a party in my belly, and the whole bag of chips / cheeze puffs is invited!

I don't think that's right. The average voter wants the minimum wage raised by quite a bit. Capital voters paint nightmare pictures no matter how small the increase is.

I don't know about NYC, but the Federal Wage has been stagnated so long, that 12.5% annualized increase seems like the BARE MINIMUM workers deserve.

I'm in Arkansas, so 30$/hr is probably a little "too much" here, but I believe in a the minimum wage should be a living wage at 40hr/wk.

1.8x increase over 5 years

12.5% annualized

Oh, don't worry, open source (or, worse, Free Software) apps won't be allowed on Android or Apple devices, soon. /s

For those OOTL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJklHwoYgBQ

Oversharing Booger!? /s

Sure, eventually, I'd like a language with Haskell-ish syntax to compile to Linux x86_64 and webassembly and use the language to make better software. If my language existed today, I'd probably work on writing my own ActivityPub software, and improve/port https://github.com/NARBEHOUSE/Ben-s-Software- because my father might want it soon.

https://gitlab.com/bss03/grtt is my published code. But, I have far more intuitions that I need to write code for than finished code.

While evaluating something well-typed under a context, the heap: does not need to contain a value for a binder with modality 0, must contain a single, strict value for a binder with a modality 1, must contain a single, lazy closure for a binder with a modality of ?, must contain multiple references to a shared, strict value for a binder with a modality n, must contain at least a single reference to a strict value for a binder with a modality of +, must contain at least a single reference to a lazy closure for a binder with a modality of *. Since the typing rules propagate the modalities to subterms precisely, we should be able to identify the exact point a closure must be forced to a value (or dropped) before runtime. That's in addition to being able to compile linear functions to heap updates, eliminating at least some allocations.

There's some similarities with both the exact-use-count and relevant-or-erased semirings, but I think some things (e.g. around sums) are hard/awkward/impossible to type and the ?/+/* modalities make some make things easier while still allowing the abstract machine to know exactly when to "optimize the heap" based on a runtime flow that "activates" a particular static analysis.

Of course, it's still MLTT "compatible" -- anything that would type-check in MLTT should type-check in my variation of GRTT by "simply" using the * modality everywhere -- so you get full proofs-as-programs and a total language.

I'm probably a bit off in the weeds, but it still makes my brain buzz to think about and occasionally I'll make progress. I've been a little bit distracted with https://gitlab.com/bss03/nested which should allow me to write the abstract machine as a fold, but as proven to be place I can also put a lot of programming time into (again, with sporadic real progress).

Is it possible to edit the title? Just curious, I'm neither OP nor a mod anywhere.