GrantMoyer

Half-life 2 has received multiple updates to shading and level of detail since it was released, so it looks a little better than it did at release. Still, it was already a visually impressive game at release.

Okay, so most of calves are still killed, but maybe after they grow up rather than while they're calves?

> Wait until it is done weaning to start using it's mother's milk.

Then what happens to the calf? They raise it to the end of it's natural lifespan as a pet? Are male and female calves treated differently?

> Most Dairy cows don't need to have a calf to produce milk.

I can't find anything to corroborate this. Every source I find on the topic says dairy cows produce milk for up to about one year after giving birth, then they need to be re-impregnated to begin producing milk again. Do you have a source for this claim?

What about male calves?

Back of the envelope math: cows live for about 20 years, but dairy cows are killed after about 4 years when their milk production slows. Assuming they are impregnated 4 times, that's (5 cows * 20 years per cow) / (4 years) = 25 times as costly. And this 25 times as costly milk has to compete with the 1 times as costly milk in a market that's already so competative that milk is sold below cost with government subsidies. It's impossible for practical purposes.

So what did they do with the calf?

I think you're misinterpreting whatever metric you got those numbers from (bioligocal value[1] maybe?).

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_value

They are different senses of the terms. In "copyright infringement isn't theft", "theft" is in the sense if car theft. In the title, "stolen" is in the sense of a stolen idea.

Copyright infringement, while it may be wrong, truely isn't akin to car theft. It is however akin to a stolen idea. A car theft deprives the rightful owner of the car, but they don't otherwise care that the thief now has a car. An idea theft doesn't deprive the thinker of the idea, but they care that the thief is benefiting from the idea without compensation. Yet they don't care if someone becomes aware of the idea, but keeps it to themself.

Some time a couple years ago or so, during a period of apparent network congestion, I ran a few speed tests using various services. Results from the popular service Ookla were always above the nominal speed of my service. Results from any lesser known service and my own ad hoc test were all significantly lower.

It's not proof my ISP was prioritizing the well known speed test's traffic to gaslight subscribers about the low network speeds, but I find it suspicious. After all, why wouldn't they? It's not illegal.

Plenty of people believe in NLP (Natural Language Processing), indeed.

This last week, gmail failed to filter as spam an email with subject "#T Anitra", body,

> oF1 d 4440 - 2 B 32677 83

> R Teri E x E q

>

> k 50347733 Safoorabegum

and an attachment "7330757559.pdf". It let through 8 similar emails in the same week, and many more even more egregiously gibberish emails over the years. I'm not pleased with the quality of gmail's spam filter.

The fine text at the bottom of speed comparison video on the project homepage says "With `hibernation = True`". Based on a search through the code, the hibernation setting appears to skip simulating components which reach steady state.

This seems to be a fairly common sentiment. I consider Rust's syntax fairly consistent and elegant for a curly brace language, but evidently I have some blind spots. What quibbles do you have with Rust's syntax?

I've thought a lot about how absurd it is that the rules we must follow are so obtuse that an entire profession exists to advise and argue if we and others are following the rules. But I've come to believe we just live in an absurd reality, and there's no possible way to communicate a set of rules to everyone, or even to get everyone to agree to one set of rules in the first place, so the legal profession is an unfortunate necessity. Of course, that doesn't preclude lawyers from sometimes being unscrupulous.

Mostly, I think, legalese is a collection of superstitous incantations built up over millenia, which lawyers use because "you need to say it exactly like this or vague, bad stuff will happen." Except sometimes the superstitions are right.

I also think lawyers don't find it worth optimising the language much, because the target audience is other lawyers who know all the incantations anyway. The target audience is lawyers instead of laypeople, because the language isn't what matters in the first place. What matters is all the relevant case law, which can vary so much from the "obvious" or even "right" interpretaion of the written language, that a layperson not using a lawyer for all but the most trivial legal needs is a recipe for disaster.

> By contrast some of the most fundamental laws in the nation, the Constitution's Bill of Rights, are generally just a sentence or two - and that works just fine.

To be fair, the Bill of Rights only works because it's been endlessly litigated, developing a large body of specific interpretaions. Together, all these interpretations would take far, far more than a couple of sentences to write out.

However, any issue of contention will be endlessly litigated regardless of how specific the written law is.

Mathematics can be unambiguously communicated because teachers are describing a system with only one or a few self consistent interpretations. Effectively, there's a natural error correction scheme built in (the state I've been described is invalid, so find the closest valid state and assume that). Note that even then, very many people struggle to communicate about math.

> Magnets are only used in spinning storage right?

Maybe not forever. Magnetoresistive RAM (MRAM)[1] has the potential to be both faster than DRAM and non-volatile (but maybe not configured for both at the same time), in which case it could replace both DRAM and flash.

That said, I'm not familiar with the physics of MRAM, so I'm not sure the Altermagnets mentioned in the article are applicable to MRAM in particular.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetoresistive_RAM

Okay, so get rid of the menial questions. If you can't get rid of them because they're important, then definitely don't use an ML model to make up answers for them.

Oh, huh. I assumed it was not registered since Blender uses "™" instead of "®" at the top of its homepage. I guess that's just for the logo then, not the wordmark.

Is BlenderGPT really a registered trademark?

Surely it infringes on Blender's (unregistered) trademark, but maybe the registration process only reviews exisiting registered marks, and it'd be up to the Blender Foundation to challenge the use of BlenderGPT. On the other hand, the USPTO trademark search didn't turn up any relevant results for BlenderGPT even though the terms of service on the site seem to indicate a US based company.

A phased array is capable of "beamforming", that is, sending an electromagnetic signal most strongly in a specific, programmable direction, as opposed to broadcasting the signal in many or all directions.

EIRP is a measure of the maximum power in any direction, so a phased array that transmits 1W only forward has the same EIRP as an omnidirectional antenna that transmits 1W forward, but also 1W backward, and up, and down, etc. Overall the omnidirectional antenna may transmit much more power total, but still only 1W in any particular direction.

We've already got Emacs

> What is the value of locking something if the lock can be easily bypassed? Just preventing the least sophisticated attacks?

Amusingly, these two questions apply just as well to almost all physical locks in the material world. I suppose that makes WhatsApp's "lock" analogy apt.

Succinctly:

  lim_(n→∞) bits_needed(3ⁿ) / n
    = lim_(n→∞) ⌈log2(3ⁿ)⌉ / n
    = lim_(n→∞) ⌈n log2(3)⌉ / n
    = log2(3)
    = log(3) / log(2)

where bits_needed(m) is the minimum number of bits needed to encode m distinct values.

From the results section:

> In the age and calendar time stratified Cox proportional hazards models, no significant associations were observed between total chocolate consumption and risk of T2D in the pooled dataset (table 3). After adjusting for lifestyle and dietary risk factors, we found that participants who consumed ≥5 servings/week of any chocolate showed a 10% (95% CI 2% to 17%; P trend=0.07) lower relative risk of T2D compared with those who never or rarely consumed chocolate.

To me, this sounds like there was no correlation, but after weighing the data by other factors (including BMI, according to the methods section) a correlation appears. Does that mean if members of a subgroup eat lots of chocolate, but also have much higher BMIs, because they also eat lots of everthing else, they could have a lower adjusted risk for type 2 diabetes, even if they actually have a higher incidence of type 2 diabetes? Am I misinterpreting?

In that case, wouldn't they be spending 200$ to get payed 200$ less?

In the case of the example, there is a move, and std::move works in the example.

The function, show, doesn't take a copy, it takes a Person object. Persons can be copy constructed or move constructed (both constructors are implicit, since there's no user-defined constructors). std::move returns an r-value reference to main's p, so Person's implicit move constructor is called, and show's p argument is move constructed from main's p. The reported address changes because moving creates a new object in C++, but the moved-to object may take ownership of the heap allocated memory and other resources from the moved-from object.

In this case, the moved-to Person takes ownership of the heap allocation from the moved-from Person's string member and sets the moved-from Person's string member to an empty string. Without std::move, show's p is copy constructed, including its string member.

Reminds me of Filmcow: https://www.youtube.com/embed/ur9jLK_6EcY?start=70&end=100

An aside: for stereo audio, even 128kbps OPUS is probably overkill[1].

[1]: https://wiki.xiph.org/Opus_Recommended_Settings