kangnkodos

I found a number of them.

Here's how I would go about systematically trying to find them one by one. I suppose this method could be built up to a proof.

First consider the shape of the outside points: point - no straight line segment - no, after a little work triangle - maybe quadrialteral - yes pentagon and up - no

For the case of 4 outside points, consider the possible lengths. aaaa - Yes. Square. Other angles - maybe aaab, b is longer - Maybe aaab, b is shorter - Maybe aabb - Maybe abab - Maybe

For the case of 3 outside points, consider the possible lengths. aaa - maybe aab, b is shorter - maybe aab, b is longer - maybe

The experiment design was flawed in the following way. What if, in real life, there are people who are much more likely to take big chances with their whole career trajectory? Also, what if there are people who are much more likely to perceive which products will change the world, and when. The combination of these two qualities is the key.

Even if these qualities are distributed on a normal curve, the result of possessing the right combination of qualities will have an extremely large effect in a winner take all world.

Sure, there will be some randomness involved. Start with two kids who both have the same optimal qualities, and only one will end up a billionaire. But my guess is that the second kid will also end up ahead of the average. If the simulation did not end up with this result, then my guess is that something was left out of the simulation.

Most jobs need less prior training than you might expect. A lot can be learned in a short period of time when you are on the job.

I haven't seen any statistics, but it looks like only a few well known mods are leaving. So, almost all mods are remaining.

There are a little over 600 total moods on StackExchange. Over 20 mods on the StackOverflow part of StackExchange. The announced departures from StackExchange are in the tens.

For better or for worse, SO will be able to scrape by with the remaining mods.

The only real problem for SO is the lack of trust. I've lost trust in the employees of SO. With every post from a SO employee, it gets worse and worse.

Who are the direct competitors of SO, if any? I would like to use a different site, if possible.

---

On this page which is updated daily, https://stackexchange.com/about/moderators I count 629 moderators across 173 sites.

---

For example, the Wayback machine shows that on December 9, 2018, the moderators on the StackOverflow part of StackExchange were these 26:

Michael Myers, Robert Harvey, BoltClock, George Stocker, Brad Larson, ThiefMaster, ChrisF, Flexo, Ry-, Bohemian, meagar, Martijn Pieters, Jon Clements, josliber, Madara Uchiha, TheLostMind, Undo, deceze, Aaron Hall, Bhargav Rao, Andy, Cody Gray, Yvette Colomb, Samuel Liew, Rob, Ed Cottrell

Today, I see these 23. If you remove George Stocker, 22:

Michael Myers, BoltClock, George Stocker, Brad Larson, ChrisF, Flexo, Ry-, Bohemian, meagar, Martijn Pieters, Jon Clements, josliber, Madara Uchiha, Undo, deceze, Aaron Hall, Bhargav Rao, Andy, Cody Gray, Rob, Baum mit Augen, Jean-François Fabre, Samuel Liew

Yes. That's a significant drop, but not enough for the users of StackOverflow to notice a difference.

Can StackOverflow provide a technical solution?

When I write my question, answer, or comment, allow me to add markup such as <pronoun @CaesarM />.

And then StackOverflow will display the pronoun in the correct way.

---

Or StackOverflow could take it one step farther. If I write a question, answer or comment with a pronoun, a dialog pops up asking me which username the pronoun refers to. The software does the rest.

Does this give everyone a 91 year expected life span? If so, it could be more accurate if it took your current age into account. Older people who have already dodged a lot of chances to die are expected to live to an older age, on average. Younger people are expected to die at a younger age, on average.

One of the biggest issues is that the long term capital gains rate is only 15% (or perhaps 20% in some cases). It's likely that most of the taxed income of people with high net worth is from capital gains, and not from ordinary income. I'm not sure, but I think he's only talking about people with high ordinary income. He could be including capital gains too. Not sure. He's definitely ignoring high net worth.

The author does not directly address the low rate for capital gains.

Also, there are two ideas which are easily confused: 1) Do the rich pay more in taxes? Yes. The number of dollars Warren Buffet pays in taxes each year is more than his secratary. 2) Do the rich pay taxes at a higher percentage of their income? This article indicates the answer to this question is also yes. However because capital gains are taxed at such a low rate, and because of other loopholes, Warren Buffet's percentage tax rate is lower than his secretary's percentage tax rate.

Also, people with a high net worth do not have to sell stocks which have gained every single year. Maybe they sold some stocks a few years ago, and they are spending the cash. In the author's analysis, a high net worth individual with no ordinary income and no capital gains for this year would not be included in this analysis at all, because they had almost no income last year (probabaly a little interest and dividends, but nothing else).

Thanks for correcting me. I see my mistake now.

Tencent controls 40% of Epic.

Tencent controls 100% of Riot/League of Legends.

Epic has no control over Riot/League of Legends.

Why have the League of Legends announcers stopped saying the words "Hong Kong" in phrases such as the team "Honk Kong Attitude", and instead only say HKA?

Does Tencent control the broadcast/streaming?

Can I put a shipping container house on a barge and live on the inland waterways?

https://www.curbed.com/2017/6/21/15839730/shipping-container...

In legal cases, it often happens that the first person to be accused of violating a new regulation often gets a slap on the wrist.

For example, if a brand new tax regulation is vague, the first person accused of violating that regulation has a drastically reduced penalty, or just a warning. Along with that, the judge writes a clarification so there can be no mistakes the next time. The clarification sends a clear message to the community that the next person accused will not get a break.

Perhaps, based on third or fourth party accounts, Monica was repeatedly asked to use specific pronouns in a moderators-only chat. If that is true, she may have driven one or more moderators away from participating there, and violated the existing CoC.

However, even if all those accusations against Monica are true, since there is no established procedure for removing a moderator, it would seem that the "judge(s)" in the new process to remove or re-instate Monica could walk a very fine line. The judge(s) could declare Monica guilty of those offenses, but give her a lenient sentence. Perhaps re-instated, but under probation or double-secret-probation.

I hope David Fullerton and his coworkers have the wisdom to consider this course of action.

Almost every number chosen randomly between negative infinity and infinity would have so many digits that it would not fit on any computer currently in existence. It would not fit on a piece of paper. In the original problem, a number is written down on one piece of paper. That limits the possible numbers involved considerably.

If instead, the game was played between two supernatural beings with access to an inifinite piece of paper, and infinite time to write the numbers down, that would be a very different game.

This demonstrates that a sequence of coin flips which could be carried out in the lifetime of a human, or by a computer while the universe exists, converted to a number between 0 and 1, and then mapped to the whole number line is not random between negative infinity and positive infinity. Because of the small number of coin flips, you will never end up with any of the really big numbers. And the really big numbers is where it's at.

I'm running a pool. How long before Google drops HCL? The winner gets my eternal respect. What's your guess?

The Expecting book is kind of good. But I often think of it as "200 things to scare the sh*t out of you when expecting". Most of the book is a long list of things that could go wrong, and most of those have a very, very low chance of happening.

I'm kind of glad I read it, but it did a job on me, worrying about about so many things that never came to pass.

It's important to give kids food every few hours for the first few months. When they are hungry, they'll let you know. At some point (4 months? not sure what the experts say) you can start trying to get them to sleep at night.

When you finally get them sleeping through the night, it's important for them to go to sleep and wake up at the same time every day, including weekends. It puts a huge dent in your social life, but it results in happy, pleasant kids.

If you provide an environment where your kids are on a regular sleep schedule every single night, that's way more than half the battle.

More than anything else, mentally prepare for world where everything you do is controlled by a little baby, and their needs.

The article doesn't mention all the programmers being (forcibly) introduced to functional programming concepts by using React and Redux.

Perhaps this is another possible way to jump the chasm?

Paul Graham, is that you?

There are two parts to the equation. Why do people create them? Why do people start using them?

The first question has been answered nicely by many other people.

To answer the second question, I think you need to consider the people who are trying to make a living from open source software. The teachers, bloggers, live streamers, book authors (are there still any book authors?). If they manage to jump on the next big wave early, they can become the established expert, and this may lead to money. 4 - Profit.

So many new framework will be met by a few early adopters trying to eke out a living, or maybe make it big. Especially if the new framework promises to solve an issue present in an existing popular framework. And this is impportant... All existing frameworks have different drawbacks. There's always tradeoffs when you design a framework. When you optimize a framework to make X easier, you almost always make Y harder. I don't think there's any way around this.

Then, when the average programmer sees many blog posts about a new framework, they may pick it up, and give it a try. The circle of framework life.

After film director Stanley Kubrick dies, writer goes through hundreds of meticulously organized boxes in search of clues to understand him.

Where is the great firewall of China on the list of villains? Surely that is doing more harm than Mozilla.

KFC is 180 years old?!

Can you add an additional name? HxHxHx - DesktopThing

Over time, you could transition to using the additional name more and more, and finally, rename the product.

I agree with you that for anyone who recently took math in college, it's obvious that Z is the set of integers. But for someone just learning it? Not so much.

Many, many years. Also, it's a thing in college. I don't think they talked about this much in high school when I was there. If they did, they started each book with a review, "Z is the set of integers".

This is supposed to be aimed at high school students.

I majored in math in college, and yet there were things which I could not decipher in the first few pages of chapter 1. For example, on page 43, what is "nonzero residues modulo p"? I guess you start with something, divide by p, and get a remainder, or residue. But what is that something? Going back to page 41, I see the hint that Z is the set of integers. I vaguely kind of remember that this was a thing that you learned once and just used forever. I had long forgotten that Z is the set of integers. I don't really see where this is clearly stated in this book.

If I was writing this for a high school student to skim through, I would make a big deal that Z is the set of integers, and Z is going to be used many times going forward, and it will always mean the same thing, the set of integers.

Someone who just learned all this stuff would be able to skim through it.

But the way it's written now, it's going to take a lot of intense work for a high school student, or someone who majored in math many years ago, to work through the whole thing.

---

Edit: I see now. The prerequisites are in Appendix E. Technically, it's in there. But it's still problematic. High school books can just be read from beginning to end. For college level texts, it's OK to tuck things in Appendix E, and require the reader to go back and forth. So, no, I still would not say this is really aimed at the high school level.

Out of the 100 largest newspapers, 57 endorsed Clinton, and 2 endorsed Trump. The world of large, reputable news sources is slanted towards the left. Google aggregates these news sources, so of course it will also be slanted towards the left. There's no way out of this for Google.

1) Build public support against hate speech.

2) Create laws to ban hate speech. This puts the government in charge of defining exactly what is and what is not hate speech.

3) The government tweaks the definition of hate speech slowly over the years. Eventually, hate speech includes anything which is against the official government line.

4) Profit. Err... Control of the country, which could be very profitable.

They are in fifth grade now... "What's a calculator? Oh... you mean a calculator app."

The article should be called "I killed my company by having all my backups in one spot."

I never understood why the murder of a police officer was viewed by some as significantly worse than other murders. In my mind, both are equally horrible.

@barking, your comment made something click. For police, the protection of police officers is by far their highest duty, and then much lower is the protection of the public. From this first principle, I can now see why it follows that the murder of a police officer is viewed as much more important, and why so many more police resources are used to solve that crime.