kazinator
I've not had a mistake flagged on my returns for the past bunch of years thanks to this, so I'm sticking to it.
The only problem is the yearly churn. I begin by copying last year's document (basically a Lisp file defining fields and their values). This has to be edited not just for values but for changes in the tax return form.
The form fields are tagged with a section symbol, which corresponds to the document; I can produce a report which basically indicates what to fill where in the paper form.
I could integrate that with electronic filing; the Canada Revenue Agency has some sort of program you register to gain access to that. (This is distinct from the "e-file" system for online filing for individuals that I don't use.) I likely won't because I believe in the paper forms. I did the work to figure out the taxes, someone should open an envelope and read handwriting
This system actually reduces the filing because I can skip the various field copying and intermediate calculations, focusing on just getting the data into the "payload" fields. It's the least time-consuming part of the process to the point where I have a sense that I'm done when the numbers are prepared, and the rest is just scribbling (cue scene from 1980s Amadeus movie). Especially that since I double check the figures, and the calculations are done by machine, I never have to do the entry twice.
Now, if something comes up in the tax code affecting me, I'm going to ask AI. E.g. "am I eligible to claim such and such". No to actually manipulate figures for me or fill something. I check every hallucination to actual documentation from the government.
They still need to tie it to you. If you've not given it a shred of personal information, it has to be fingerprinting via surreptitious audio/video recording, or else by obtaining the purchase info from the retailer (like the name and billing address from your credit card) and matching that by serial number (which would have to be recorded during purchase).
Without either doing the fingerprinting from surreptitious audio recording in the room that other commenters mention, or else matching the unit serial number to the purchaser (requiring the retailer to leak personal info to the manufacturer), they can't match the unit's location to our identity.
Bzzzt! Calculators do not hallucinate. AI bots and agents are nowadays jerry-rigged to use actual calculators for problems involving crunching.
Yes because you have to fetch a shitty TV remote with buttons inspired by a Boeing 747 cockpit, which must be aimed directly at the TV because it uses shitty infra-red.
Am I close? :)
Sure, I would be disturbed that it's doing that sort of thing in spite of Wi-Fi being explicitly turned off.
What is the threat to me though?
Can you explain why you can't just not give the TV your Wi-Fi password?
Or are we worried about the case when the TV did have Wi-Fi (due to it being mandatory for some initial setup, say), but we don't trust that "Forget Network" and "Wi-Fi off" are actually honored?
Suppose the device surreptitiously reconnects to Wi-Fi in spite of being told to forget it. You may be able to block it in your router and failing that, change the access point password.
No?
Secondly, the amplitude drops. Events that were concentrated on the xx:xx:00 times are now distributed into xx:xx:xx times. If the overall number of events is the same, each :xx time slot now receives 1/60th of the events that were concentrated on the :00 time. If power decibels are relevant here (20 log 10 x), that's a 35 dB reduction in amplitude of the driving signal.
35 dB less amplitude, shifted to a 6 octave higher frequency that the grid doesn't react to very well can be expected to basically make the problem vanish.
This is much like the situation of soldiers avoiding rythmic marching when crossing a bridge to randomize their footstrikes.
This type of scheduling should be randomized at the seconds level, perhaps. Unfortunately, it would require a massively coordinated effort across numerous operating system and application stacks.
Except, it all somehow changes when I pop into the driver's seat of a manual transmission car.
https://www.kylheku.com/cygnal/
It's behind quite a bit; haven't done a rebase in a while.
This is just one of the features (Issue 7); the idea is to provide a POSIX run-time for easily porting programs to Windows, but follow the conventions of the Windows environment.
Am I close?
https://www.seikowatches.com/global-en/products/presage/spec...
Operations can incur some kind of "debt" which a more expensive operation occurring later has to pay for. Or they can be regarded as enjoying something "prepaid" by an earlier expensive operation until the credit runs out and another prepayment has to be made. Possibly, either view can be used to arrive at the same result.
The level of contention on the part of Pyon is disconnected from the level of detail given to "amortized" in the article and based on the false premise that the word "average" implies some kind of order that is contrary to "amortized". (Expert, my foot).
It is factually correct that a an amortized performance is an average, but readers should be aware that it's a special kind of average (not every average is "amortized") and that it is a warning label: an algorithm with performance quoted as amortized possibly exhibits a big latency spike that occurs infrequently.
However, I have to agree with the substance of the comment; it is a pretty lousy explanation of amortized performance to simply equate it with a kind of average:
> If you read more about big-O, you may see the word “amortized” thrown around. That’s a fancy word for “average,” meaning that individual occurrences don’t all behave exactly the same, but over the long run, averaging over many operations, the behavior has a certain characteristic.
While the result of amortized analysis gives us a kind of average, averages show up in more than way in performance analysis not necessarily via amortization.
The author complains that "[Pyon] pointed out a detail of algorithmic analysis that I had not mentioned. It’s a detail that I had never encountered before."
But the author obviously encountered amortization before, and mentioned it in the article, and not in a very good way.
Amortized analysis isn't something obscure; it is the basis for understanding everyday algorithms such as chained hash tables and garbage collection. It's covered in like third year CS courses.
When an algorithm touts amortized performance, that's a red flag: it suggests that certain operations are infrequently hit with a pretty big cost. For example, a hash table insertion that has to resize the table doesn't just not act "exactly the same" as a previous insertion, or following one; it takes much longer. All the items inserted so far (or at least their hash table entries) have to be visited to redistribute them to a larger table. That could be hundreds of millions: the larger the table, the more expensive this is, yet less frequent. So yes, the amortized performance (like O(1) constant time for hash table insertions) is a kind of average, but the distribution may be heavily skewed, with implications particularly for real-time work. It's not a "nice" average with a tight bell curve distribution jittering around a mean.
A better way would be to say that "amortized" is a kind of average where operations are infrequently penalized with a substantial performance hit, which helps make most other operations faster: the "amortized analysis" which calculates this kind of average works by pretending to redistribute the large cost incurred by one operation among the others. And not all average performance figures are derived using amortized analysis. The word is only used when that particular reasoning was applied, and is mentioned as kind of warning label.
An example of average that is not amortized is, say, searching an unordered list of unique keys, where we expect on average successful search for a random key to process half the list. Readers do deserve to know that they should not use the word "amortized" for this kind of average!
If you don't think that information about every UPC code or person who ever existed is fair game for inclusion in the Wikipedia it means you have some notion of notability. If so you should articulate it exactly and say, "this is what notability should be".
Ted Bundy and Adolf Hitler are notable for the purposes of the Wikipedia. So, yeah ...
Also, another way to be notable enough for the Wikipedia is to end up in the "Notable Winners" section of this page:
Someone was driving the train who couldn't estimate the stopping distance relative to speed.
If a car is stalled in the middle of the road, and you hit it, that's on you. 200% if a reflective warning triangle was up 100 meters back.