archgoon

You are aware that there are languages other than English, and that the author is Swiss?

It may even blow your mind that Google searches are not in fact the same for other people, and can vary in time, location, and the individual searching for something.

So perhaps you should explicitly say what your concern is?

When I search for werwolv, I get the person's github entry, and the german entry for 'Werewolf' https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werwolf

(B) Would exclude this article so I think it's a bad rule.

I think you meant

  type Human struct {
     Name string
     MaybeHasCat *Cat
  }

As you have written (not making MaybeHasCat a pointer), go will correctly initialize (at least as of go1.20.5) the nested Cat structure and allow for direct assignment.

Having a null pointer exception for a null pointer is a behavior I would expect. Having one for a non-pointer structure would be surprising.

I don't believe the word 'ego' appears anywhere in the article.

> Trigger Bounce

Mostly makes me think of some EE effect you'd see with a o-scope.

"Yeah, that's not real, it's just Trigger Bounce"

If you should peruse the paper that they published, be aware that the actual meat of the paper is in the supplementary section, past the citations. I was extremely disappointed the paper until I realized that.

> And teaching is not about getting people to say aha. Thats just performance or entertainment.

Thank you. Reading the article will not in fact give you an easier time at the Jackson Problem sets.

I think many people who think this would have helped them back in the day have simply forgotten what the actual hard part of the degree was.

The basic ideas, the pictures, the diagrams, etc, found here, typically show up in enough books if you look for them that I don't feel that this was the main limiting factor in my physics education. The difficulty of Jackson (which doesn't show up until grad school for most students) is in the problem sets, not the ideas behind the equations (which most students have a had at least two courses in already).

I don't believe that having a more 'intuitive' idea of the equations really helps all that much, as the intuition needed for solving the problems isn't really physical, but mathematical. Which integrals are solvable, which order of integration will make this tractable, do I need to use properties of Bessel functions here, etc.

We can argue whether getting good at this sort of thing is actually useful for physicists, but I wouldn't know. Very few of us ended up becoming researchers in the field.

Depends on what you mean. If you mean "how much is commercially viable" versus "how many kilograms of the stuff are there" you get very, very different answers.

For just "how much stuff is there", we can look at the concentration in the earths crust, and we get about 10^17 kilograms of the stuff (10^15 if you want U-235).

If you just say "Sure, but we can't get most of that, how much can reasonably get extracted at current prices and technology" then you go down to about 10^9 kilograms.

There's an interesting underlying philosophy of what constitutes a 'hack' and what constitutes a 'glitch' here. Both are clearly going against what was intended by the original developers, and if you push a 'glitch' far enough you can reprogram the entire game.

I suspect that the line is one of those fun fuzzy ones.

Not sure what to make of this. If the authorization is basically not being used, then it's a decent question to ask why they are so interested in renewing it.

Unfortunately, I don't think there's a reasonable way to answer this question that doesn't rely on people's pre-existing biases. I'm sure everyone on this board knows what the 'real' reasons for the FBI wanting section 702 are.

Even better, they implement negative exponents as well, so you don't have to find a library or cobble together an extended gcd function, since you get in inverses for free.

Since I can't currently order, can someone say how the ordering process works? Do they send back a link to be used with stripe? Or do they try to handle everything within the terminal? The latter seems to invalidate their claim that this is just as secure as using a web browser.

LoRa is radio communication so part of EE, not CS.

Otherwise, I'm going to toss TV shows as part of CS, since Amazon Prime and Netflix streaming are things. Also, it's the original programming.

No, this is the opposite phenomenon.

Chip frequencies didn't detach from the reality. However, as you point out, the performance improved regardless because frequency wasn't the only thing that could be improved.

Another poster summarized what happened with transistor 'density'. New techniques were invented that 'effectively' improved performance, and the industry apparently wanted to continue to use this one number as the basic benchmark.

'This person' sounds like cts being cts doing cts things. Don't see why you'd think they're copying Foone.

Chen has not claimed to have broken SVP; only in certain situations. This is a better LLL; not a polynomial hierarchy overturning.

This was last discussed 6 years ago. The pocket calculator can now finally accomplish all described tasks.

I don't think this is a reasonable interpretation of an unsent later. The point of creating documents for the purposes of CYA requires them to be publicly recorded otherwise there will be accusations that the document was created after the fact.

There's really no reason to believe this was a motivation for Lincoln to write a letter, particularly because there is no clear reason for him to be concerned for CYA. The only people Lincoln would be accountable would be the voters, and I don't see producing a letter blaming Meade for letting Lee escape to be something that would pass muster. I mean, what's the argument here? "I was angry at Meade at the time, and here's the letter proving that I was angry"?

So it seems reasonable to conclude that this is an example of anger management, and not a political back up plan.

I believe that several citations of your assertions is in order.

> I believe I could walk up to any college senior in physics and they wouldn't know that “the determinant is the product of the eigenvalues,"

Unless things have gotten significantly worse in physics education in the past decade, I'd be happy to take the other side of that bet.

I will also be willing to bet they could prove it.

The problem you'd have with physicists is convincing them that there are matrices that aren't diagonalizable.

I mean, it's pretty impressive that Quantum Mechanics forbids FTL communication without referencing the speed of light at all and relies entirely on linearity.

I'm kinda shocked that neither the Vision Pro or the Quest allow for actual AR development since the passthrough cameras aren't available to 3p devs.

What are you trying to simulate?

Elodin is not really the same sort of physics simulator at all.

It's the nature of the word "can't" which allows a single counterexample to debunk an argument.

If the grandparent poster really meant "It is quite difficult", then it seems that we have arrived at a more accurate representation of the original argument, and thus 0xbadcafebee has been contributing greatly to the discussion.

I don't think you've grappled with the point the author is making.

>“If we open up ChatGPT or a system like it and look inside, you just see millions of numbers flipping around a few hundred times a second,” says AI scientist Sam Bowman. “And we just have no idea what any of it means.”

>To me as an engineer, that is just incredibly unsatisfying. Without understanding how something works, we are doomed to be just users.

AI aren't complicated. They aren't sophisticated math that you can poke at and understand.

They're fucking million dollar spaghetti code that happen to work (for values of 'work').

Those videos are teaching people "This is an if statement! This is a CPU!" And then you can look at 5.8 billion lines of spaghetti code and say "Gee! I understand how this works now! Yay!"

Strong words. Why do you believe no one knows how magnets work? What would be a satisfactory answer?

David Brin wrote on this in "The Transparent Society". From the Amazon summary:

> David Brin is worried, but not just about privacy. He fears that society will overreact to these technologies by restricting the flow of information, frantically enforcing a reign of secrecy. Such measures, he warns, won't really preserve our privacy. Governments, the wealthy, criminals, and the techno-elite will still find ways to watch us. But we'll have fewer ways to watch them. We'll lose the key to a free society: accountability.

Note this was published in 1999, so one can argue about how far we went in either direction. I think we mostly ended up with a collective shrug.

> Precision Medicine, on the other hand, is an innovative approach that takes into account individual differences in people’s genes, environments, and lifestyles.

That seems to be a far cry from asserting genetic determinism. Can you explain what you were trying to communicate with that link?

Why?