LodeOfCode

Keyword being "simple". The common sense solution often turns out to be unsound based on a more detailed perception of the situation

"Spying"

>The FBI in 2023 sought and obtained data about the senators’ phone use from January 4 through January 7, 2021. That data shows when and to whom a call is made, as well as the duration and general location data of the call. The data does not include the content of the call.

I'd assume that's a typo of "violence or hatred"

The law actually says "anything of value of $5,000 or more". The majority opinion is just arguing in bad faith there

I'd guess that it speaks to the "knew charges were coming" bit to support that they were specifically fleeing the law and not disappearing to escape a bookie or an annoying family member or something

> I remember having to hustle to get from one end of campus to the other in those 10 minutes

Yeah, personally I read it less as 50 minutes being some biological limit of human attention and more as once you go over people start thinking about how much longer you're going to be, how long it'll take to get to their class, weighing missing the end of this talk vs the start of the next one vs skipping their bathroom break/sprinting. Plus the added the distraction of people who have reached their limit getting up and pushing their way past to leave.

That case was settled in April[1]. TFA is about the passenger in the 2016 crash

[1]https://www.ttnews.com/articles/tesla-settles-suit-autopilot

Couldn't you just 1. Draw an arbitrary line through the cake 2. Set each person's valuation of a point on the line equal to their valuation of the cross section throgh that point 3. Use the algorithm to cut the 1D pseudocake 4. Make the corresponding cross sectional cuts to the real cake

Actually for round cakes you could even make normal (wedge-shaped) pieces by re-parameterizing distance along the line as angle and cross sections as infinitesimal wedges.

Edit: And for the rectangular cake you could slice the cake up along one axis and line those pieces up end-to-end first so that the cross sections would have a reasonable width instead of having slices as wide as the whole cake

6^5 ends in ...76

6^25 ends in ...376

6^125 ends in ...9376

6^625 ends in ...09376

and so on

That'd be the equivalent of scraping your dishes, not rinsing them

*Unlike the author

>Thank God my son was fine, but the comment about the dead bull intrigued me. We didn't own a bull. Where was he? How did the bull die? And why was he telling me about it?

>Then he said, "The car is damaged but operable." All right. He had gotten into some type of accident, the car wasn't a total loss, and there was a dead bull (still a great puzzle).

Where this fails is

>to be derived from the efforts of others

The buyer expects to derive profits from arbitrage to the existing market value. If Nike shut down the moment you bought the shoes the profits would still be realized, because they don't require any effort on Nike's part.

Some have have started moderating more actively, with a new rule that all posts have to be John Oliver

https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jun/20/how-john-...

Although with binary numbers you'd probably want to modify the rules to avoid rolling so many d20s, since you'd need to re-roll them 12/32=37.5% of the time

This reasoning is true of every real number, yet it's been proven that almost all real numbers are absolutely normal and therefore contains every finite sequence of digits

Ironically you only start to see it where you want to see it. Motivated reasoning you agree with is just reasoning

The list of participating subreddits[0] includes ~3/4ths of the big subreddits. 7 of the 10 subs with over 30 million members[1], 81% with 20-30 million, 77% with 10-20 million, 80% with 5-10 million, and 71% with 1-5 million

I don't think the blackout will be limited by its scope so much as by its duration

[0]https://www.reddit.com/r/ModCoord/comments/1401qw5/incomplet... [1]https://www.reddit.com/best/communities/1/

That Rootclaim analysis seems sloppy as hell. From the "Show More" of the outbreak location section:

>Thus, the ratio of zoonotic:bioweapon:zoonotic collection:modified lab escape is 2:5:100:50, or a reduction of a zoonotic origin by 50x, a bioweapon origin by 20x, and a lab escape by 0.5x.

Those aren't the same ratio.

>To account for the possibility that there is a yet unidentified reason why Wuhan is a more likely location for a zoonotic outbreak, these numbers are generously adjusted to a reduction of a zoonotic origin by 20x and a bioweapon origin by 15x, with lab escape remaining at 0.5x.

But what they actually apply is a reduction of a zoonotic origin by 20x and a bioweapon origin by 15x, with zoonotic collection at 2x. Which isn't the result of applying that adjustment to either of the original ratios, so apparently they've just applied the lab escape factor to wrong category

The alignment squares here are a pretty big giveaway, and it seems like it'd be really difficult to fix that without making them unscannable

Although it could be much clearer, the article doesn't actually specify an order. Half the participants did the stimulation night first, per the paper:

>participants were tested during two experimental nights (order counterbalanced): an intervention night and an undisturbed night

Because the test can't reasonably cover all of the course material in depth. The idea is that the test takes a representative sample of the course material, so your understanding of the material on the test is indicative of your understanding of the course material overall. Specifically studying the material you know is on the test invalidates this premise, and by extension the results of the test

The birthday paradox only applies when you're trying to find any pair of inputs with the same output, because then the probability of success scales with the number of pairs ≈ guesses^2. If you're trying to find an input with a particular output (in this case one that results in the same key as their password), then on average you'll have to try half the search space (divided by the number of correct answers in the search space, but that should be one in this case)

I'd assume the random guesses for bitcoin miners is because with a deterministic chunk of the search space you risk the possibility that someone else chose the same chunk and so already tried all the values you're trying

I meant based on definition of a bit as "a yes or no answer to a single unambiguous question".

"Umm..." definitely carries some kind of information, but it doesn't actually help answer the question.

Based on the information theoretic definition of entropy we'd need to go from 50:50 to 89% certainty to get half a bit of information, and I'd probably qualify 89% certainty as "probably"

I think "Umm..." would be zero bits, and half a bit would be more like "Probably"/"Probably not"

FTA

>In Seoul, South Korea, a speeding-up in traffic around the city was seen when a motorway was removed as part of the Cheonggyecheon restoration project.[2] In Stuttgart, Germany after investments into the road network in 1969, the traffic situation did not improve until a section of newly-built road was closed for traffic again.[3] In 1990 the closing of 42nd street in New York City reduced the amount of congestion in the area.[4] In 2008 Youn, Gastner and Jeong demonstrated specific routes in Boston, New York City and London where this might actually occur and pointed out roads that could be closed to reduce predicted travel times.[5]

Workers who often don't cover their scheduled shifts get fired anyway, so that problem would solve itself without the AI knowing they're colluding

>How is it going to convince Jack to switch his shift and come in to cover open on Sunday

Offer triple time taken from what otherwise would've been the human manager's pay?

Because then defecting is optimal: if the other players follow through, you win ~100% of the time by picking 1.

The point of the equilibrium is that even if your respective strategies are public knowledge, nobody can benefit from changing theirs

To me the numbers imply the steps are sequential, so I'd say the answer is actually turn 1

Nit: the literal witch hunts were mostly after the end of the middle ages