thaumasiotes
I hope you'll forgive an unrelated tangent: what culture does your ~~ tag come from?
Later, I bought Katamari Damacy, and it doesn't have that aspect. You can't suck up everything on the planet. You can get moderately bigger and pick up objects the size of a car instead of objects the size of a paper clip.
What you're describing just isn't a strength of the original game; it was a strength of the sequels.
-elle is pretty clearly descended from one of the usual Latin diminutives (also visible in e.g. Spanish tortilla). -ette seems to come from a much rarer one?
There's a fun map on Spanish wikipedia of which diminutive forms are preferred in which parts of Spain: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:Diminutivos_del_espa%C...
That's not really what I said. The name is a masculine name. You can name your son "virility" without problems. If you try to do that to your daughter, you're going to have problems. The grammatical gender of the word is a separate concern.
It isn't!
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Miles
>> From Old French given name Milo, of problematic origin, possibly from an unknown Germanic element, or a short form of Slavic names beginning with mil- "grace, favor". The English form is associated by folk etymology with Latin mīles ("soldier").
It would be nice to know that the Old French name didn't secretly happen to match the hypothetical Old French form of the Latin word for soldier. I sadly don't personally know how to check what form miles, militis would have taken in Old French.
A good heuristic, though, is that if the French name had come from this very common Latin word, someone would have already thought of that (as has in fact happened many times) and it would have been thoroughly investigated. The evidence in support must be somewhere between "wafer-thin" and "robustly contradicted by the known sound changes from Latin to French".
What do you mean? The Italian male name Andrea and the English female name Andrea aren't unrelated names that happen to be spelled the same way. They are one and the same name, both derived from the Greek word for "man"; the Italian name has managed to remember that it's overtly masculine and the English name has forgotten this.
Maybe, I guess. That would be one of those "abbreviations" like "Peggy" ("abbreviating" Margaret) that doesn't actually abbreviate the name, and you just have to know that someone out there thinks it's related.
"Stevie" for "Steven" follows the ordinary rules of English. For "Stephanie", you'd expect "Steffie".
And it's not even part of his legal name.
> How does that work when they’re 60 with grandkids?
They get called "grandpa" like everyone else with grandchildren.
No, not even a little bit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fisherman_and_His_Wife
> Synopsis
> A poor fisherman lives with his wife in a hovel by the sea. One day the fisherman catches a fish who claims to be able to grant wishes and begs to be set free. The fisherman kindly releases it.
> When his wife hears the story, she says he ought to have had the fish grant him a wish. She insists that he go back and ask the [fish] to grant her wish for a nicer house.
> The fisherman reluctantly returns to the shore but is uneasy when he finds that the sea seems to become turbid, as it was so clear before. He makes up a rhyme to summon the [fish], and it grants the wife's wish.
> The fisherman is pleased with his new wealth, but the wife is not and demands more, and demands that her husband go back and wish for a palace. Reluctantly, he does and gets his wish.
> But again and again, his wife sends him back to ask for more and more; she then asks for him to be made King, then to be made Emperor, then to be made Pope. Each time, the fisherman knows this is wrong but there is no reasoning with his wife.
There was an interesting essay about Star Trek's depiction of society over time largely coming to the conclusion that modern writers/audiences don't seem to believe in the idea of duty to an institution.
https://www.thebulwark.com/p/are-we-all-too-cynical-for-star...
You'll notice that removing entries from the cache causes exactly the same effects as changing the data that backs them.
( https://archive.org/details/lifeandadventur00morggoog/ )
He was transported to Australia in the 19th century, but thanks to a shipwreck he ended up joining an Aboriginal tribe. He was taught their language and joined their society to a certain degree (they thought he was dead, so a limited degree).
He was horrified by the level of violence in their lives, and sometimes when two sides were lined up to do battle he would appear and go around knocking the weapons out of their hands, which prevented the battle.
I like to imagine faux-outraged tribesmen loudly lamenting "Oh no, the ghost took my weapons! Obviously we can't have a battle now. Oh well, nothing to be done."
You can have a law like that. In fact, we already do have laws like that. This is the general concept of a tort.
But the work of the law is being done by the discussion of harm, not the definition of "stealth bot".
You made me curious about the spelling of 'holistic', given that it really is based on the concept of wholeness. It turns out:
- Holistic is formed from the Greek root hol-, meaning "whole". Like hologram.
- It's even closer to the English than it looks; modern whole descends from Old English hal (cognate to the Greek word), which also gives us hale and health. The W in the modern spelling is a spurious addition unrelated to the etymology of the word. You'd expect "hole".
- Who is different, and the W in that word is etymologically correct. (Old English hwa.)
Taking the first thing I could find, geekflare.com informs me that the current user-agent string for Google Chrome running on Windows 11 is
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/155.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
> Someone who is using a residential proxy network, headless browsing, and/or TLS fingerprint manipulation to evade rate limits and other controls to issue large volumes of automated requests under a deceptive UserAgent string isn't difficult to describe and differentiate versus a normal user using a UA.
Note that someone who's scripting a headless browser doesn't need to use a deceptive user-agent string. They can use the user-agent string for their browser, which isn't deceptive except to the degree that all user-agent strings are 90+% lies.
Surely we have more code than programmers for every language in existence?
Except for the part where the concept isn't even well-defined, this sounds like a complaint that the world contains more bricks than bricklayers. Of course it does.
How do you know this? For example, there is a wikipedia page section entitled "Origin of use in the English language"...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knocking_on_wood#Origin_of_use...
but the contents of that section make it extremely clear that no relevant facts are known to wikipedia.
What do you mean when you say "capitalism"?
No rhyme in the original doesn't mean there should be no rhyme in the English. Akkadian and English are different languages. English verse rhymes.
--- technical details ---
CLRS (3rd edition) defines three types of amortized cost analysis. The first type ("aggregate analysis") requires us to show that for all sequences of n operations, the total actual cost of performing those operations in that sequence is less than some function T(n). We can then say that the amortized cost of all such operations is T(n) / n. This makes it necessary that cheap operations precede expensive ones.
The second type ("the accounting method") is different: we assign potentially-inaccurate prices to all operations. These prices will be constant regardless of the actual cost of performing those operations. Conceptually, an operation is in "credit" if its actual cost is less than its assigned price, and it is in a state of owing if its actual cost is more than its assigned price.
We must then assign prices that make it possible to show that, for all sequences of operations, the total actual cost of all operations from the start of the sequence to point n within it is less than the total amortized price assigned by our price schedule. (Stated another way, while an individual operation is free to "owe", a sequence of operations may never be in an "owing" state.) If we can prove that, we are justified in making a claim about the amortized cost of the operations we considered. (Under this method, the amortized cost of an operation is equal to the price we assigned it.) This also makes it necessary that cheap operations precede expensive ones.
The third type ("the potential method") defines a potential function which evaluates the state of the data structures maintained by the algorithm. ("Potential" in the sense of potential energy, which can be stored and later released.) It then says that the amortized cost of an operation is equal to the actual cost, plus the difference in "potential state" caused by the operation. Conceptually, if potential is raised, the amortized cost was higher than the actual cost (and has built up a buffer that later operations may draw down), and if it is lowered, the amortized cost was lower than the actual cost.
As before, we must show that no sequence of operations can place the data structure into a state of negative potential. Cheap operations must precede expensive ones.
------
Now, why was pyon telling you you should be ashamed of your post? It's almost certainly these two paragraphs:
>> 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.
>> The analysis we’ve been doing is for the average behavior. Lots of operations can behave much worse in unusual circumstances. Adding a key in a dict and looking up a key are O(1), which is true for typical data. But if you understand the internals of dicts, you can carefully craft a set of keys that will perform terribly, with O(N) behavior. Filling that dict would take O(N²) time.
Your post has confused average-case analysis with amortized analysis. (And it makes this problem worse by implying that the two terms refer to the same concept.) The point of amortized analysis is that you cannot see worse performance than the amortized cost.
An amortized analysis is deterministic and averages runtime costs over the different operations that are present in a sequence of operations beginning from a given initial state; an average-case analysis is stochastic and averages runtime costs of a single operation over many different performances of that operation against different initial states. These two terms are not synonymous and they don't belong to the same universe of terminology; if we're thinking about "average-case analysis", then an amortized analysis is a type of "worst-case analysis", not a type of average-case analysis.
The first paragraph I quoted tells us that you're talking about amortized analysis, but you aren't: the example you provide is of an average-case analysis. If the amortized cost of adding a key to a dictionary were O(1), it would be impossible for adding a sequence of N keys to that dictionary to take more than O(N) time. (As is in fact the case for the Python list.append example you mention beforehand.)
Female teachers are disproportionately unable to perceive the emotional communication of others?