longer_arms

There are hardware and software labs, which are administered on paper by PhD students. These include(d): ML (the functional programming language), FPGA/soft core development, Java tasks, breadboarding some logic, prolog and probably some different ones now (looks like some machine learning tasks?). Some of them are referenced and described on the links above. There's also a group project in year 2, a dissertation individual project in year 3, and a small holiday project between 1 and 2. Overall, a few students get through it without being able to properly program, but most basically self teach.

Except your comment was about refusing to engage in the activity, analysis of the themes and subtext.

The whole point is that of a subjective analysis, with infinite interpretations which aren't objective views of the text, but a product of the interrelationship between: the text, the context of the text's writing (inc authorial intent), the analyser, their context, and the context of the academia around the text pre existing. These aren't objective measures, but the aim is to have something to say, to have enough insight into the world to link ideas up and make something up that sounds convincing.

Saying the book isn't as good as other people said it was isn't that, and it isn't really very useful, even as a personal opinion, and is completely missing the point of the exercise.

> And as a kid, you certainly can't say a classic author is not interesting. You can't say the text is boring, that you don't see talent in it, that you didn't learn anything from it. It has been validated by society, hence it's good.

That is because that statement is both not useful in the context (you're there to pick it apart) and reflects pretty badly on your understanding, clearly the text has some depth, even if not consciously included, to be analysed. If your conclusion was "rubbish" when you're meant to be making a point about subtext, you're failing, its pretty simple.

People include subtlety in their art even if they don't intend it. Things can not be fantastic but still reflect society, the author, your own experience, which is the point of literature analysis.

Surely the time complexity of the abacus sort is O(ksqrt(n)+cn)? What with the time taken for the beads to fall being proportional to the square root of the distance under freefall and proportional to n itself when at terminal velocity? (so strictly O(n)). Radix sort on a known range of integers has some similar-ish properties.

Insulin is pretty temperature stable these days: http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2FBF00277482.pd...

Have you tried alternative test site meters? I test on my forearm and it doesn't hurt and mostly takes a couple of quick lanceting. I use Freestyle lite test meter with a multiclix lancet. No finger damage, no mess, just have to have forearms visible. Easier for your wife to do too since lancet placement is trivial (anywhere on forearms). Hope the CGM works for you ofc