ezwoodland

Just all the useful proofs. You can get arbitrarily more complicated and uninteresting theorem statements by making meta statements about the system you are doing proofs in. At some level the system can't answer questions about itself.

That's an Easter egg. It goes the other way too (vim -> did you mean emacs).

How else would you define bias if not an offset from equality or zero mean?

For example, the b in y=mx+b

You can only do so in another framework that might itself have bugs.

Lean is called that because the hope is the part that has to be correct by inspection ("the kernel") is small or "lean".

The kernel does have bugs sometimes.

Websites should be thought of as VMS and shouldn't be trying to reverse engineer host state.

Sounds like a technical issue that is not better solved by remote devices doing age verification, but instead by fixing the already existing implementation.

Depends on if the independent events are uncorrelated. For example, if they had to be quantized to a grid of length 1750ft and quantized sufficiently in time as well, it might be impossible to average out since the various data points provide no new information.

> Pirating is easy...

That reasoning is why companies would prefer it be more difficult.

According to Wikipedia, git does that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable-length_quantity#Remov...

> imagine a world where ...

It already works like that.

> customers never bother to submit their own T&C's so they're not fairly represented

You can't. Not a question of bother.

> if you don't, then don't use the service

The problem is that this is mostly not an option. The service doesn't have competition or competitors don't have better T&C. Sometimes, like in the original commenter's example, there is a legally enforced monopoly.

At least the government has to enforce certain rights when using government provided services.

What makes OFDM inherently worse at long range? Don't you just lengthen your symbols and use the extra frequency bins until you have tolerable losses?

No? Why would it?

In the negative case, it would say the idea doesn't pan out.

In the positive case, it would mean that you can use just S instead of S and K when doing combinator reduction, but doesn't change that this kind of reduction is not super efficient practically speaking.

That doesn't matter. You could imagine a system that accumulates two terms: (actual result, junk). Instead of deleting something it just adds it to the junk part of the pair. Maybe the junk part itself has computation which never ends, but it doesn't matter because you just extract your result from the left part of the pair.

Something along the lines of reed-solomon codes could work for you:

If you want to share your password with M family members such that you only need N to agree to recover the original:

Split your password into ordered chunks.

Make a polynomial p, of power N where the p(1) = chunk1, p(2) = chunk2, ...

Evaluate the polynomial at M other points: p(N+1),p(N+2)...

Gives those M new points to your family along with their index (+1,+2,...).

If less than N family members get together, they will not be able to figure out the password much better than guessing. If N get together, they can interpolate their points to form the unique polynomial which will match p. Then evaluate p at p(1),p(2),... to get your original password.

If you put the whole password into 1 chunk, and pad the polynomial with random extra coefficients or points to make the polynomial of sufficient degree, then they get literally no information on the password without having at least N cooperate. If you make multiple chunks then they can do a little correlation between the chunks without knowing the whole thing.

This is sufficiently simple you can even work this out by hand without a computer, though it would be somewhat tedious.

I think the parsed c program is the DSL. You have to write a parser and compiler for the c-like source to the actual c code.