u/drvd

Am I wrong?

Hard to tell from that list. E.g. it is basically very hard to "pass a 50MB Prometheus JSON payload by value" as this would need an array. And there simply is no "pass by reference" in Go as pointers aren't references. And there is no standard Go "project layout" and especially /pkg is considered an antipattern and /internal often overused (btw. it is impler to refactor a 5k+ line main.go than 20 short files spread over 5 packages).

Linear Algebra. But: What type of quantum physics? Experimental stuff, theoretical stuff? Quantum Computation? Interpretation of QM?

The "fundamentals" are just 4 postulates/axioms and linear algebra in Hilbert spaces. But these fundamentals make no sense unless you understand the physics behind it (which starts classicaly).

You could try to learn Go, it's a nice language too. And so simple that it takes somewhere between 8 to 48 hours depending on your prior knowledge in programming. But of course: If you believe what management dreams about: Get into the AI driver seat! But why bother reading the generated code? If you cannot write and/or change it there is no need to read it. If in doubt: let the AI explain the code.

Full disclosure: My job depends to a certain degree on younger people being unable to do actual programming, debuging, maintenance, engineering and trouble shooting. For that reason I fully support your learning plans.

You can reach speeds much faster than c in any household: Take a long ruler and move it over the table edge, observe how the point of intersection of ruler edge and table edge moves. Now decrase the angle between ruler and edge more and more: Once the ruler is almost parallel to the edge and you move the ruler over the table edge the intersection point moves faster than c. Does this mean anything? No.

Das darf er auch gern der Bevölkerung der Schweiz erklären, wir stimmen auch bald ab! Und wenn man die Kommentare auf Blick.ch zu den Bilateralen III liest, muss man entweder ob der Dummheit seiner Mitbürger verzweifen, oder hoffen, dass das eben Russenbots sind.

Selenskyj: Bitte weiter bomben! Schon komisch wenn die schweizer Demokratie durch ukrainische Drohnenangriffe auf russische Rechenzentren verteidigt werden muss.

Ganser ist so peinlich. In allem.

Das wollen SVP und SVPler der Mitte leider nicht hören.

Yes. It's not that complicated if you do not insist on a "fundamental" (read fully QED) description of how your transistors in the CPU work.

No. Even without reading it: No.

Genau diese Art von "Neutralität" beschwört der Greis vom Herrliberg doch laufend als unser Erfolgsmodell. Ist der Greis vielleicht einfach vergreist?

Lustig wenn 57% des Einkommens "Gemischtes Einkommen" + "Anderes Einkommen" ist. Früher sagte man dazu "Goldesel" oder direkter "Geldscheisser". Schon komosch, dass das nur die ganz, ganz reichsten der allerreichsten trifft.

Dont use Fiber unsless you know what you are doing and understand the tradeofs. Fiber is based on fasthttp which brings whole lot of own problems and if you do not need the one single benefit that fasthttp brings (note: you don't) than fasthttp and thus Fiber probably is the wrong choice.

if mathematics has prooved to us that there’s infinite possibilities therefore infinite questions with infinte answers?

Ultrafinitist would disagree that "mathematics has prooved [...] there’s infinite".

Ein Referendum ermöglicht es den Bürgern, über ein konkretes Gesetz zu entscheiden, ohne ihre Haltung zu allen anderen Themen ebenfalls in diese Entscheidung packen zu müssen.

Wenns denn so einfach wäre. Siehe Ernährungsinitiative eigentlich super Sache, alles valable und dringende Dinge und dann hat es da ein völlig dämliche Zahl drin (und zu sportliche Übergangsfristen) und was jetzt? Auch hier muss ich "ein komplettes [...]Paket kaufen" und kann nicht sagen: "Lass mal mit den 70%".

Referenden entschärfen den Konflikt aber Vorwärts geht halt auch nix. (Und soll mir keiner erzählen er hätte in der Sachfrage USR III / STAF nicht einfach die Parole "seiner" Partei befolgt.)

Hard to tell as most people currently switch to Go.

There is a difference between "calculating", "math" and mathematics. Being "horrible at math" is probably just lazyness and unwillingness to learn the right vocabulary and play the game accoring to the rules. Logic as a part of mathematics uses dedicated vocabulary and has certain rules. If you do not accept that you have to lear nand follow them: Stay away from logic. Bit honestly, basically nobody is bad at math, just give it a try.

Ölbert (und Gas Kathi) klingen irgenwie niedlich, und ich frag mich, ob nicht klarere Worte nötig wären? Ist Öl-Stricher und Gas-Nutte zu abwerten, oder können wir das verwenden?

What exactly would you use dependent types for?

Few understand.

Literally.

Your example is less about modal logic than about temporal logic (which addresses things like "futur", "past", "always" or "in the past"). That's the problem with natural language sentences that their implication almost never is the material one and you have to be very careful to construct a natural language example whose normal-day-meaning really is captured by the one logic (here modal) you are studying.

with ctx argument that can can be called only from functions that already have ctx

Every function has at least two Contex: context.Background() and context.TODO().

See: no "color".

I plan on using my hammer when i see nails

That is not a plan, that is plain obvious what hammers do. Same with generic methods. Your question makes very little sense as your hammer example clearly shows. If your project doesn't involve nails you do not "plan to use a hammer".

If you know Go then yes. If you don't then no.

But that's basically the same answer for every language (except niche stuff like Brainfuck, Lean, Delphi, PROLOG and FORTRAN66).

No plan. Actually I'm unsure why anybody sane should have a "plan" to use a certain language feature. With iterators we didn't have "a plan on using" them. It turns out most of our codebase doesn't suffer from not havin iterators nor from not havin generic methods so we never set together to decide where to use them first or second.