anandoza

Could someone also write bad code and commit it using someone else's email address in the commit message, thus making the commit link to the other person's Github profile? (Sort of the reverse problem -- "giving blame" instead of "taking credit")

> The driver hands you a key and leaves

How?

You don't understand how something can sound appealing at first, but then in practice isn't enjoyable?

Well, you can apply the theorem to the problem. Or apply its principles to the problem.

Do you know if it's the same people, or just two significant (but possibly disjoint) populations of people?

3 hour video with no timestamps, a minimal description, and comments turned off?

Hey, I'm not 51 yet!

Doesn't gaining 600 points mean that you are able to beat the "old you" (or more precisely, people who you used to be even with) with 99% probability? (Or perhaps more meaningfully, you can now beat someone who could beat someone who could beat someone who could beat someone who can beat the old you, all with 80% probability?)

(I made up the exact numbers, but the idea is there.)

That seems like a meaningful interpretation of "600 points" that applies to anyone -- though the difficulty of actually making this improvement definitely varies with your starting rating.

Ah, maybe it's been changed, but now it's more clearly intentional:

> A piece of information you may or may not want us to find about is your email address....

> [email address box] Subscribe Free

It halves your risk.

What about sentences that end in a period without a quote? That seems like it'd be much more common.

Yep, this blog post is in the context of using these symbols in mathematics, where this is the only usage of << and >> that I've seen.

I agree that programming languages, it can mean various things, just like < and > mean different things in C++ vs bash vs drawing arrows.

It seems pretty correct to me (excluding a few things I'm not familiar enough with to evaluate).

Is it possible that you misinterpreted this as a post about << and >> in code rather than their usage in mathematics?

Yes, I thought the exact same as you -- that the headline meant a BCI achieved like 400 wpm or something.

If you want to frame it that way, then each physical deck can handle 52 distinct queries. So you have 52^2 / 52 = 52 decks required.

There are many situations where a good player can be predicted because there is a clear best option (or a good option that advance knowledge won't invalidate).

Lichess.org actually does have a 5fold repetition rule that applies without players claiming it -- https://lichess.org/faq#threefold

Kind of funny that your hypothetical example was exactly reality in this case.

> I always thought that it would fail to decode the string since the probability that changeme is actually valid base64 encoding must be very low

I'm a bit confused, I thought any string with only lowercase letters was "valid base64" (more precisely, I thought "valid base64" is equivalent to "string consists only of the 64 special characters we're using to represent digits 0-63").

Draw a graph with vertices labeled 0 through N, then add edges i->(i+1) and i->(i+2). The answer is the number of paths from 0 to N.

This is still pretty specific to counting paths in the same way the original knight problem is, though.

The other comment is talking about how you represent each state for the recursive function as a vertex, then connect it to its dependencies (basically taking the recursion tree, but merging identical calls).

> People’s general focus on the hose rather than the hole is well demonstrated by the fact that anyone you ask will be able to tell you how much money they make by some unit of time but almost no one will be able to tell you the same in terms of their costs.

I mean, this is just because most people have 1-2 income sources and way more expense sinks, so this is just rhetoric.

They mean "previous" as in before the hackers did the password resets. (So all your passwords, except the one the hackers set.)

I don't think this implies a problem with "your current password" security, just that you don't care if the hackers have the password that they set themselves (and clearly already know then).

I think it's likely that the author's analysis of why 5 is the optimal cache size heavily depends on the fact that they only tried fib(10). For example, it's clear that cache 20 and cache 30 are identical if your universe of possible inputs is only [0 .. 10], haha.

Because of the way the recursion goes down the tree depth-first, I think 5 basically cuts down the computation to fib(10-5) = fib(5) which is pretty manageable, so the author couldn't really see any further measurable performance gains by increasing the cache further. I think for fib(35) it'd be clear that cache size 35 would help compared to cache size 5. (I picked 35 instead of, say, 300, because I think 300 would just not finish with cache size 5, it'd take forever haha.)

> As, we can see the optimal cache size of fib function is 5. Increasing cache size will not result in much gain in terms of speedup.

Try it with fib(35), curious what you find.

the simple recursive solution is actually O(fib(n)), which is exponential

There are 1024 configurations for counting in binary, and only 11 for counting "normally". Some of those other ~1000 configurations are harder to do (like having every other finger up). Mostly stuff with your ring finger.

What's the difference? Maybe I misunderstood but isn't pooling the views and then giving money weighted by views the same thing?

I think it's (very) poorly phrased, and what they meant by "logical deductions" was algebraic simplifications.

For example, if you already know x == 3 and your original "assumption" (not a great word choice here) is "x < 5 OR x > 20", you can simplify that to "3 < 5 OR 3 > 20" and then to "True OR False" and then the boolean literal "True", so you know the original expression "x < 5 OR x > 20" is True.

That's my best guess, at least.

I think you might have misunderstood the parent comment (since your reply is somewhat of a non sequitur). My interpretation was that "if I wear a mask, then people will assume I'm infected and give me space, which is actually just better for me regardless of the mask's direct efficacy".