kpreid
Capability systems include a way to _pass_ capabilities as part of the basic routine operations.
I don't have a good overview to recommend you, but for ‘what kind of signals…’ I do recommend grabbing a RTL-SDR device, and just reading about how to use it should give you lots of pointers into the rest of the SDR world.
— a video would make sense, wouldn't it.
Learning new information about the base game (or it being updated by the developers) changes what moves are best in the metagame — but as this knowledge propagates through the player base, the probability distribution of what-you-will-be-facing changes, which also changes the best choices of meta-moves.
For an example of why metagames are more than just knowledge about the base game, suppose that we have a fighting game with character A (or a CCG with a player-designed deck A) who is well-rounded and B who doesn't do so well in most cases but is good at beating A. Then even if the base game doesn't change at all and nobody learns a new trick, B is a good choice if and only if lots of other people are playing A — meaning you have a dynamical system.
A lively metagame keeps things interesting because players keep doing new (or dusting off old) things to defeat the current things, rather than sticking to what works — because "what works" changes. It avoids the problem of "X is best, so either you ignore other parts of the game or you are deliberately playing suboptimally".
I don't know what the limits on efficiency are, and the Wikipedia article mainly addresses AC-to-DC conversion rather than DC-to-AC, but I assume simply from the fact that they aren't used these days that they aren't an improvement on solid-state inverters.
If a keyboard radiates it is likely to be either from the unshielded, unbalanced matrix wires going to the keyswitches, or leakage from the controller going onto the outside of the shield. (I think the latter could be reduced by using (more/bigger) decoupling capacitors, i.e. shorting out the RF.)
Coiling a wire does not generally make it a more effective antenna; it may or may not make it less effective depending on the circumstances. (The reason some antennas are coiled is to get the same length of conductor into a smaller space.)
I don't recall where, but I have heard an argument that there is pressure on the information density of natural language, as follows: If you are frequently misunderstood, then you can save effort (not have to repeat/explain) by adding redundancy. If you are never misunderstood, then you can save effort by removing redundancy.
There's no particular reason the result of this process should be good for crosswords, but it's a reason to be in the middle rather than at the extremes.
However, the article said “about 35 degrees” so the actual number is probably something 34.5 ≤ x ≤ 35.5 but not actually 35.
My geometric intuition says that in 3D you can always construct a cycle but I don't know how to formalize it. Imagine a flat zig-zag chain of alternating bends; you can reshape it to a curve of arbitrary radius (around the axis of the width of the chain) by turning each bend slightly relative to its neighbors (about the axis of the beam), in alternating directions. Then you can choose a radius which makes the ends meet exactly.
For example, have a single, explicit 'scroll position' or 'time' variable (they're equivalent in this case), increment it on a timer, and insert new text when (time mod N) rolls over.
“This question is protected to prevent "thanks!", "me too!", or spam answers by new users. To answer it, you must have earned at least 10 reputation on this site.”
It's basically like semi-protection on Wikipedia: things which have gotten a lot of attention can get lots of noise, so only more established users are allowed to add content.
Feature request: once I've picked a search result, (allow me to) hide the results — that is, have no left sidebar, so the whole UI fits in a smaller window.
It is a matter of cleverness (rather, successful algorithm design and theorem proving) how large you can make that subset. Such a subset could, for example, consist of programs written in a particular (non-Turing-complete) language, such that it is known how to construct a proof of (non-)halting because the structure of the program corresponds to the structure of a proof assembled from parts corresponding to the language's constructs.
This subset, this language, will necessarily exclude universal Turing Machines and other forms of interpreters — but I see no particular reason this is a problem for writing power plant control systems.
The structure of the above argument applies just as well to characteristics other than halting. For example, one can straightforwardly prove that any program does not access unallocated memory, provided that that program was written in a memory-safe language; the language is designed such that none of its constructs, nor any composition thereof, can be caused to do so. The analogous impossibility condition for this example is that you cannot express a C (or other non-memory-safe language) implementation in this language (without a virtual memory layer).
Common Lisp macro bodies are written in Common Lisp, i.e. written in a Turing-complete language — they would still be Turing-complete even if we wrote them in the subset Lisp-without-macros. The C preprocessor, on the other hand, does not invoke a Turing-complete language to compute a macro's expansion.
Same layout functionality, no abuse of HTML semantics.
long_struct_name *fooArray = malloc(count * sizeof * fooArray);The alternative would be a security hole in Google.