adament

But a synchronous function can and many do make network calls or write to files. It is a rather vague signal about the functions behavior as opposed to the lack of the IO monad in Haskell.

To me the difficulty is more with writing generic code and maintaining abstraction boundaries. Unless the language provides a way to generalise over asyncness of functions, we need a combinatorial explosion of async variants of generic functions. Consider a simple filter algorithm it needs versions for: (synchronous vs asynchronous iterator) times (synchronous vs asynchronous predicate). We end up with a pragmatic but ugly solution: provide 2 versions of each algorithm: an async and a sync, and force the user of the async one to wrap their synchronous arguments.

Similarly changing some implementation detail of a function might change it from a synchronous to an asynchronous function, and this change must now propagate through the entire call chain (or the function must start its own async runtime). Again we end up in a place where the most future proof promise to give for an abstraction barrier is to mark everything as async.

This is function overloading, you can do the same thing in C++. In Python you type this using the overload decorator from the typing module.

Would you care to elaborate which device it is? 12 years old means it at the most could have come with Honeycomb when you bought it. Has the base OS been updated since? It is great that you bought a device which presumably got OS updates for many years, unfortunately that is not common for android devices. And the problem is, if it did not get an OS update, the truststore did not get updated, and thus it does not trust the LetsEncrypt root CA sometime next year. Except for Firefox which luckily comes with its own root certificate list.

Iphone 7 got an iOS update to 15.7.7 in 2023 and its truststore contains the ISRG Root X1 certificate: https://support.apple.com/en-gb/HT212773 I am unsure which apps you cannot install but a quick look in the app store indicates that Zoom, LinkedIn, Notability, 1Password, Disney+ and Netflix all support iOS 15.7. And in my anecdotal experience I could find no app with a minimum OS requirement greater than 15.7. As far as I can tell you need to go back to iPhone 4S to find an iphone which does not support the LetsEncrypt root certificate. That device is only 11 years old, so still worse than your Android device. And I do not think there is a workaround by using a different browser like for Android.

It is not a matter of the age of your hardware but your software. Ipad mini 4 got its latest OS update in 2023. The problem is that in the Android ecosystem it is unfortunately common to only have a short window of OS updates from the release date of the hardware.

But usually these other devices can also update their software, it is quite unique for the android operating system to run old and unupdatable software.

Or they should if they are web facing. For security reasons at least.

But would you version it by storing it as output in an ipnyb file where it is overwritten if you rerun that cell? I would store the data in a versioned database or as separate data files in the repository (possibly stored in git-lfs). And I would store results of the analysis as data files / image files / whatever else, NOT as ephemereal outputs in an ipynb file. But I am pretty far down the “ipynb files are for local use only” path.

If for some reason you really wanted to compute Fib(n) for ridiculously large numbers of n, you would probably use that [Fib(n), Fib(n-1)] = A [Fib(n-1), Fib(n-2)] for the transition matrix A = [[1, 1], [1, 0]] and thus [Fib(n+1), Fib(n)] = A^n [Fib(1), Fib(0)] and then use exponentiation by squaring to compute A^n directly and thus Fib(n) in log_2(n) steps.

When I was a kid and trying to learn LaTeX this happened to me all the time on the library computers.

I do not think I have a point, you just made me remember some fun and dreadful moments.

I think your point is valid and important, especially considering the average user. However in my experience it worked surprisingly well with a long word based master password. Since I only needed to remember 1 password that I then used daily it was not that difficult. And typing it was quick since it was all lowercase which most keyboards are optimized for. However the issue came when I started using my password vault on my phone and tablet. I was way too slow at typing on them. I now have a 22 character password which takes the same time for me to type on a keyboard, maybe a bit slower, but is faster on my phone though still annoyingly slow.

As for 70 bits password, it might be enough, but you need a lot of iterations (2^58) if you want to completely make up for the lost security margin. Which will also be unusably slow in practice.

I am not a cryptographer but to my understanding, the number of PBKDF iterations is really only of concern for weak (low-entropy) passwords. If you know that your password has high entropy (>128 bit), for example because you generated it randomly uniformly from at least 2^128 possible outcomes[1], you are safe even if you used only 1 iteration. PBKDF is all about password strengthening, so if you are making changes for yourself the most effective change is just to use a secure password and stop worrying about key derivation functions.

[1] 28 characters in a single case, 23 characters if both upper and lower case are used, 22 characters if you include numbers, 12 words if you use a word list of 2000 words and sample uniformly

If I recall correctly it is the standard libraries(such as libstdc++) that need this exception and not the compiler itself.

That is good news, thank you! And I apologize for spreading incorrect information.

Interestingly the FSF also requires copyright assignment for contributions to GCC, Emacs and some other GNU software.

I had the same thought about the 200% thing. Actually I think it is either empty boasting or a difference of terminology. I understand giving 100% to mean: I give as much as I possible can. Giving 200%(or anything above 100%) sustainably for all your career sounds impossible by definition to me.

As an aside(since you used him for the author) I found it interesting that the author (according to her LinkedIn profile) is a woman. My initial prejudice was that giving so much more than everything to your work sounded like something that is only possible if you have a partner taking care of everything at home. And I immediately assumed this must be due to traditional family roles.

But this is exactly what happens when you fine a company.

Unless you fine the company enough for it to go into bankruptcy in which case the shareholders are protected by limited liability and the creditors take the hit instead. But the bankruptcy angle is completely irrelevant to this case, none of the fines considered are close yo bankrupting Google.

My understanding is that under current EU market abuse regulations trading on inside information* that you overheard on the train is still insider trading. Sharing inside information in a manner not required to fulfill your role (i.e. with an analyst if you are a regular employee, or with a specific analyst before the general analyst community if you are the management) is also a violation of MAR (dissemination) even if nobody trades on it. It is only if the information is public that you can trade on it (with an exemption for market makers).

* Under MAR confidential information is not necessarily inside information, as one of the prerequisites for the information to be inside information it must be likely that it has a significant effect on the price of a financial instrument if made public.

Does it? The opening poster specifically wrote: “we need to produce less, consume less” that is not just non-geometric growth but negative growth. So in this case the opposite of live small can simply be zero growth, or further exponential growth for a limited time and then zero growth or linear growth.

No GP is arguing that since the blockchain cannot solve any of the mentioned problems, it does not provide any real benefit. The dispute for companies today are seldomly about whether they signed a contract (the part the blockchain could help settle - though you still need to provide the legal entity -> cryptographic key mapping) but how to interpret the contract and align the legal world(words on a page) with the real world (widgets delivered, machines broken, etc.).

If the problem was about enforcing a signature, you do not need a blockchain, each party to a contract can just store the cryptographic signature themselves or with one or more trusted custodians. That is a fundamental feature of cryptographic signatures not blockchains. And then you need some mapping from legal entities to public keys, but this might as well be a centralized database run by the government (potentially outsourced to a private contractor), after all in many jurisdictions the government already keeps a list of legal entities and metadata about them.

Assuming you are allowed to transfer into the base layer. Most currencies and finance have a similar decentralized base layer: Cash. However in many jurisdictions your ability to transfer into that base layer is severely restricted due to money laundering, anti-terror-financing and / or currency-control regulation.

It does not make everybodys lives easier, it makes your life easier by easing the support burden at the cost of making the lives of those who have to live with those policies (marginally?) harder (or more annoying). It is quite a bold claim that those of us who do not shut down our laptops every night have no reason to do so, and you know better than us that it would come with no additional cost to us to do so.

It might very well be that it is preferable to the organization as a whole to sacrifice a bit of productivity everywhere for less burden on IT. But IMHO it should not be a decision which the IT department can make in isolation.

If you come from a pure math theory first background I would advise starting out with Björks “Arbitrage theory in continuous time”, I personally found the lack of rigor and superfluous examples in Hull frustrating and found Björk much more approachable then you can look into Hull for real life practicalities like daycount conventions, etc. If you want to go into complex derivatives pricing I would advise looking at the Andersen and Piterbarg trilogy.

I am sorry but I cannot parse your first paragraph, so I do not understand your point. Thus I have written a general reply to your link.

I do not read any clear recommendation for or against Bitcoin in the link you have given (maybe I did not read it carefully enough).

It might be my understanding of Bridgewater that is wrong, but I think of them as mainly targeting institutional investors and high net-worth clients. So when Mr. Dalio writes “Bitcoin looks like a long-duration option on a highly unknown future that I could put an amount of money in that I wouldn’t mind losing about 80% of.” I do not think of that as dissuading an allocation to bitcoin at all, he is merely warning about the size of the allocation, in contrast in the same letter he talks about Bitcoins gold like properties and he has generally been quite vocal about the benefits of an allocation to gold, so I take that as a positive overall impression.

Though I think the daily observations from 2022-01-14 is much clearer as a recommendation for bitcoin. In it they write about how Bitcoin and Ether are now large and liquid enough for them to be worth the time of institutional investors to look into. And they write that they think institutional adoption is likely to pick up in coming years.

I might be reading too much into it, but when I read the piece I got the clear impression that it was a recommendation to make a small allocation to bitcoin. After all who does not want to get in before the big institutional investors?

For those who find the existence of such analytic functions intuitively "wrong", note that it is essential to this example that though the second derivative is positive, it is positive and decreasing towards 0. If the second derivative is bounded from below by some positive value, then eventually the first derivative will become positive and it will diverge towards positive infinity and thus the function itself will diverge towards positive infinity.

More precisely suppose that f is twice continuously differentiable and f'(x) < 0 and f''(x) ≥ 0 for all x greater than some K (for example K=0 in the examples given) then λ( (f'')^-1((a, ∞)) ∩ (K, ∞) ) < ∞ for all a > 0 where λ is the Lebesque measure.

He has or at least Bridgewater has been pushing an allocation to Bitcoin in some of their Daily Observations in the last 1 or 2 years.

Do you have a reference for the definition of this energy storage unit? I have never heard of it before and my attempts at searching the web seem to contradict you.

Wikipedia writes: “Storage capacity is the amount of energy extracted from an energy storage device or system; usually measured in joules or kilowatt-hours and their multiples”

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-fu... writes: “Storage systems for electricity include battery, flywheel, compressed air, and pumped hydro storage. Any systems are limited in the total amount of energy they can store. Their energy capacity is expressed in megawatt-hours (MWh), and the power, or maximum output at a given time, is expressed in megawatts of electric power (MW or MWe).”

Both of which to my layman reading opposes your claim.

Is it really true that you can measure distance in seconds? I think light-seconds are different units from seconds hence why they measure distances, similar to how Watt-hours and Watts are not the same unit. If a second was a measure of distance then speed would be unit-less (second / second) as opposed to the speed of light which is light-second / second ≈ 3e8 m/s.

None of the configuration was about the wifi interface not working out of the box, but about setting up an access point and a network bridge. If OP had just wanted to use the interface as a normal wifi client I suspect installing NetworkManager was all he had to do(installed and started by default on most user-friendly distros) and the experience would have been equivalent to Windows, Android or iOS. At least that has been my experience the last 5-10 years.

According to the table it is not H12 but E12 which corresponds to Efficient Particulate Air filters (EPA), I.e. not high-efficiency.

I understood the presentation to be on the distinction between equality and isomorphism and when an isomorphism "is an equality". From the slide on homotopy type theory I get the impression that he finds it unsatisfactory to simply consider all isomorphisms as equalities.

But I might have misunderstood your objection?

A pension fund might very well be allowed to buy junk bonds since it is a well-known if risky instrument whereas bitcoin ETFs are a newfangled weird instrument that is probably not covered by their guidelines.

I mean allowed in the sense that the investment guidelines set by the board allow it.

Source: I work at a pension fund where I think we are in precisely this situation.