archgoon

Do you mean that Bloomberg should have used a different title or Hacker News should have modified the title?

Ah, but that's a beauty of it. If you encrypt with ECB you can't be decrypted by a federally compliant organization!

Yep! That is it alright.

Here's a talk from an llvm conference with the details.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmjliNp0_00

So fun fact, if you compile

  int sum(int n) {
      int sum = 0;
      for(int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
          sum +=i;
      }
      return sum;
  }

clang, with -O2, will turn this into the polynomial (n+1)*n//2. It can also do similar transformations for multiple loops.

https://godbolt.org/z/so6neac33

So if you do a brute force solution which could have been reduced to a polyomial, clang has a shot of doing just that.

Microsoft and Apple preceded the dot com bomb by several decades. (Microsoft 1975, Apple 1976)

Amazon was a company that was around and survived the dot com bomb (founded in 1994, roughly around the time of the beginning of the bubble) [though its stock took about 7 years to recover]

Facebook was post dot com bomb. (founded 2004)

It is this argument, about what benefits the jaguars themselves bring to the farmers, that is unfortunately lacking from the article.

Thank you for the additional context.

I don't get it. The article's title is that the ranchers have become allies to jaguars and pumas.

But nothing in the article supports that view. What has changed are cattle ranching practices that reduce the opportunity of attack. Everything that the article talks about is "How did cattle ranchers adapt to an ever present threat of pumas and jaguars without killing them (for reasons that are not well discussed beyond a reference to a government mandate)" rather then "We're best buds now!" or even "We have found utility in the jaguar and puma population that benefits us".

It seems the adapted practices are beneficial on their own, but it sounds like they would be beneficial without jaguars and pumas.

Trump is notoriously transactional. If the unions continue to play ball, he might apply leverage in their favor.

Do they actually provide applications the ability to access raw camera data? They don't allow that on the Occulus.

They can only rely on 3p devs if they allow access to the hardware.

Step 1 of reverse engineering anything: Figure out the make and model of the thing. ;)

"Employee badges" can be implemented in a number of ways, from simple broadcasted rfids down to having secret challenge responses that aren't breakable without going down the jlsca route since the secret is on the device and never leaves it.

So, step 1: figure out what exactly the model your 'employee badge' is using and what protocol it uses. There's probably some marking on it that should give you the manufactuerer at least.

The Jacquard Loom predates that by over 80 years. I'm sure we can stretch the definition further and go back even farther.

What were they coding on in 1924?

Comma is in the wrong spot. It's $34,000 USD (350k Krona).

White, male and old.

Example usage (found randomly by google, likely can find others):

https://www.veterinarywoman.co.uk/2015/02/the-stale-pale-mal...

Interestingly, google's search results indicate the phrase may be (currently) a UK thing (based on the domains of the results).

I mean, say what you want about Meta only releasing the weights and calling it open source, what they're doing is better than this.

I mean, if you want to argue it's a Non Profit, not a business, go ahead, but I'm not particularly interested in fitting modern tax code and business rules to an entity that has existed for 1500 years.

The organization has existed and has had a need to find funding for it's activities. Since the question was about 'state' run entities, the goal of "making a profit" seemed not particular salient.

Honestly, I thought the more contentious part of this claim was going to be if the Church of Sinai constituted a state.

The Church of Sinai has operated Saint Catherine's Monastery for nearly 1500 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Catherine%27s_Monastery

> What do you mean by free speech is regressing in anglophone countries? That seems like a weird opinion to have? Do you have a particular example?

In the US at least, I'd say for most of the existence of the web, the prevalent idea was that the best way to counter 'bad' speech was more speech.

The concern over 'misinformation' has resulted in a lot of people, whom previously had advocated for unrestricted speech, calling for regulation or removal of section 230.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/02/opinion/misinformation-di...

Like many Zeitgeist trends, it is difficult to measure concretely and objectively, especially if it hasn't been tracked in the past. Especially when people's understanding of what constitutes "free" speech shifts over time.

This doesn't explain why the insurance companies don't have an incentive to fight back.

If Acadia is engaged in insurance fraud, the insurance companies have every incentive to stop that.

Sounds like fun :)

You should write up a blog post where you had to debug some weird gnarly issues. A lot of us higher up the tech stack are pretty far removed from the signals level issues you're talking about but would love to hear about a low level debug session!

Based on what it seems that you're asking, it is not, and cannot be, a foolproof process. consider

  int getSpecialArrayElement(char *array, uint64 key) {
     i = computeOffset(key);
     return array[i];
  }

Compute offset can be arbitrarily complex (and probably deliberately hard to analyze if obfuscation is desired). There's nothing that prevents this function from accessing arbitrary locations in memory. You don't know if this will be accessing symbols that are already defined in memory by the linker short of exhaustively trying all possible inputs (and computeOffset may have turing traps for that).

Just wanted to say thank you to the maintainer and creator of magic wormhole. I had to help my nephew debug what had happened to his computer which didn't have any gui after a restart. Setting up magic wormhole to send files back and forth was a feasible solution over the phone.

They aren't a book; they're a tutor. Tutors cost recurring money. A brief google search shows that in my area, 1 hour of math tutoring goes for $50 / hour.

Can they achieve equal or better results than a tutor? That's a separate question, but that's the market they're in.

> short version is that the Pauli exclusion principle forbids fermions

I'd like to point out (for others following along) that the Pauli exclusion principle isn't actually a separate rule (That is, something you'd have to apply after you do 'normal' physics). What is happening with the PEP is that if you start off with a wavefunction that has fermionic symmetry (that is, interchange of two particle swaps the sign of the wavefunction), the evolution via the Schroedinger equation will preserve that (much like it preserves the Integral(|psi|^2)=1 relation). Same for bosons.

So if you're writing a Quantum physics simulator, you don't need to put in a "Pauli Exclusion Rule" step.[1]

[1] Though depending on your representation you may toss one in for numerical stability.

> that village is down wind of the dust you will kick up when it goes off.

I'm always happy to hear that there are people saying these sorts of things in the military. I'm sorry it wasn't fun at the time, but the Safety Officer really was looking out for you. You really don't want to be the unexpected cautionary tale, like Bob.

I think you meant

  type Human struct {
     Name string
     MaybeHasCat *Cat
  }

As you have written (not making MaybeHasCat a pointer), go will correctly initialize (at least as of go1.20.5) the nested Cat structure and allow for direct assignment.

Having a null pointer exception for a null pointer is a behavior I would expect. Having one for a non-pointer structure would be surprising.

> And teaching is not about getting people to say aha. Thats just performance or entertainment.

Thank you. Reading the article will not in fact give you an easier time at the Jackson Problem sets.

I think many people who think this would have helped them back in the day have simply forgotten what the actual hard part of the degree was.

The basic ideas, the pictures, the diagrams, etc, found here, typically show up in enough books if you look for them that I don't feel that this was the main limiting factor in my physics education. The difficulty of Jackson (which doesn't show up until grad school for most students) is in the problem sets, not the ideas behind the equations (which most students have a had at least two courses in already).

I don't believe that having a more 'intuitive' idea of the equations really helps all that much, as the intuition needed for solving the problems isn't really physical, but mathematical. Which integrals are solvable, which order of integration will make this tractable, do I need to use properties of Bessel functions here, etc.

We can argue whether getting good at this sort of thing is actually useful for physicists, but I wouldn't know. Very few of us ended up becoming researchers in the field.

Depends on what you mean. If you mean "how much is commercially viable" versus "how many kilograms of the stuff are there" you get very, very different answers.

For just "how much stuff is there", we can look at the concentration in the earths crust, and we get about 10^17 kilograms of the stuff (10^15 if you want U-235).

If you just say "Sure, but we can't get most of that, how much can reasonably get extracted at current prices and technology" then you go down to about 10^9 kilograms.

Chen has not claimed to have broken SVP; only in certain situations. This is a better LLL; not a polynomial hierarchy overturning.