CaptainNegative

They don't count the additions or shifts because they're both linear time operations, and thus provably at least as fast as multiplication (both in an asymptotic and exact sense). In any case where multiplication is super-linear, this means that addition and shifting are are not the temporal bottleneck at any stage in the algorithm where you have a constant number of those operations surrounding at least one multiplicative recursive call (on numbers of similar magnitudes).

If additions were truly free, an even easier optimal algorithm would just be repeated addition involving zero multiplications.

Does he also run a time machine? He bought TikTok only earlier this year.

why is the standard response when someone comes down with a serious illness to bring them into a facility where serious illnesses spread readily?

sometimes the presently available solutions are subpar. people go with what's available. it's not ideal, but it is practical.

I don't know why someone with a cousin named Pablo Diego José Francisco de Paula Juan Nepomuceno María de los Remedios Cipriano de la Santísima Trinidad Ruiz y Picasso is that much of a better hire than someone named Jón Bergþóruson, 王小明, Sukarno (with no surname), גִּדְעוֹן בֶּן־גּוּרְיוֹן , or Karl-Theodor Maria Nikolaus Johann Jacob Philipp Wilhelm Franz Joseph Sylvester Freiherr von und zu Guttenberg. None of whom would classically qualify as diversity hires.

Hiring someone in the off chance that their ethnicity gives them some unique critical unknown unknown that will pop up half a decade down the line resides in the same mental space as a programmer writing `if (5 == i)` in case a future programmer accidentally deletes an =. It's just speculative defensiveness whose efficacy is simply not well established by actual research. And, in my view, just works to confound actual signals that, evidently, gitlab and other employers feel get unfairly overshadowed when emphasizing explicitly pro-diversity hiring policies.

There could also be some degree of "(5) bandwagon effect" players, who pump money into an outcome specifically to get people talking about its possibility, thereby increasing its probability of coming into fruition.

but at some point a state based cyber attack that just wipes wikipedia off the net is deeply damaging to our modern society’s ability to agree on common facts

Haven't we hit that point already with bad faith (and potentially government-run) coordinated editing and voting campaigns, as both Wales and Sanger have been pointing out for a while now?

See, for example,

* Sanger: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Larry_Sanger/Nine_Theses

* Wales: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide/Archive_22#...

* PirateWires: https://www.piratewires.com/p/how-wikipedia-is-becoming-a-ma...

You can generally reduce the problem to a finite alphabet by taking the finite subset that actually appears in the input.

You can generally sort any array in constant time by taking that constant to be the time it takes to sort the array using bubble sort.

I feel like the section on primality testing with Fermat's test should at least make a shout out to Carmichael numbers and that for some inputs the probability you get a false positive result is 1.

This is so tangentially related to the P vs NP problem that the title is basically pure clickbait. Remove every sentence relating to polynomial anything and the information content of the write-up doesn't change at all.

What's a concrete threat model here? If you're sending data to an ssh server, you already need to trust that it's handling your input responsibly. What's the scenario where it's fine that the client doesn't know if the server is using pastebin for backing up session dumps, but it's problematic that the server tells the client that it's not accepting a certain timing obfuscation technique?

Capping margins at a percentage also directly breeds inefficiencies. If you could spend $10M to fix a problem that costs you $4M/yr, you're effectively paying $10M now to lose $400k in annual profit potential.

It depends on their test dataset. If the test set was written 80% by AI and 20% by humans, a tool that labels every essay as AI-written would have a reported accuracy of 80%. That's why other metrics such as specificity and sensitivity (among many others) are commonly reported as well.

Just speaking in general here -- I don't know what specific phrasing TurnItIn uses.

TOTP inside a password manager doesn't make much sense to me. What's the point of two factor auth if both factors are stored together?

Only finitely many values of BB can be mathematically determined. Once your Turing Machines become expressive enough to encode your (presumably consistent) proof system, they can begin encoding nonsense of the form "I will halt only after I manage to derive a proof that I won't ever halt", which means that their halting status (and the corresponding Busy Beaver value) fundamentally cannot be proven.

I don't understand the point of this article, as it doesn't define an objective function. It just states a strategy that is only practically implementable for small board sizes (given the cited NP-completeness result) and then calls it good sans theorem or even conjecture.

I believe it is provably not the optimal algorithm for solving the problem under the minimax objective, and I have a hunch that (due to rounding issues) it is also not optimal for minimizing the expected number of guesses under even a uniform prior. So what does this actually accomplish?

Golda Meir was the Prime Minister (head of government) of Israel after having naturalized in the US when she was 19.

The temperature of an object is a macroscopic property basically depending on the kinetic energy of the matter within it, which in a typical cup of water varies substantially from one molecule to the next. If before you could guess a little bit about the kinetic energy of a given water molecule based on whether it is part of the ice or not, after melting and sufficient time to equilibrate the location of a particular molecule gives you no additional information for estimating its velocity.

Not specific to this article, but it's tragic that computer science curricula, and discussions of these algorithms, virtually never highlight the tight connection between binary search and long division. Long division done in binary is exactly binary search for the correct quotient, with the number written above the line (plus some implicit zeros) being the best lower bound proven thus far. Similarly, division done in decimal is just "ten-ary" search.

I think the problem is in going for a Computer Science degree when you really meant to study Software Engineering.

What counts as a standard formatter? Python one-liners are Turing complete even without semicolons, evals, execs, and with finite stack depth. E.g. some formatters keep this at one line, while others introduce line breaks https://yonatan.us/misc/bf.html .

Since P is a subset of NP, everything in P can be also be turned into an instance of SAT.

This statement is kind of trivial. The same is true for any language (other than the empty language and the language containing all strings). The reduction is (1) hardcode the values of one string, y, that is in the language and another string, z, that is not in the language (2) solve the problem on the given input x in polynomial time poly(x) (3) return y if x is to be accepted and z otherwise.

The total running time is at most poly(x)+O(|y|+|z|) which is still poly(x) since |y| and |z| are hardcoded constant values.

This isn't an area I know much about, but wouldn't there be a security risk involved with storing the TOTP seeds alongside the passwords? Or is that not a real concern?

no need to be colorist

I often find myself mixing Nones into lists containing built-in types when the former would indicate some kind of error. I could wrap them all into a nullable-style type, but why shouldn't the interpreter implicitly handle that for me?

Why would you assume this targeted three people? I assume the most likely scenario is that the attackers targeted as many Hezbollah members as they could, and were extremely successful at it.

This proof has almost nothing to do with Euclid. The Pythagoreans knew about it more than a century before his birth (Hippasus was apocryphally killed for divulging this proof), and the proof is widely believed to have only been inserted into Elements by others after Euclid's death.

I don't think that follows at all. Any series of rational numbers that converges to a rational (such as any appropriate geometric series) will still converge to a rational if you remove any finite or co-finite subset of terms.

In principle, someone seeing heido15wkj6@yourraredomain.com, yua16ooaaj2@yourraredomain.com, and kqoq91inhi4@yourraredomain.com in a dump might be able to infer that all of these belong to the same user with a catchall address (especially if they can verify that the domain is unpopular via dns caching or other tricks). Using a common service adds another partial layer of anonymity between the email addresses, making one harder to track.

Assuming the usual consistency caveats, the paradox is no longer a theorem of ZF+DC, but its complement isn't either. So in that case the analogue to the fifth postulate is even stronger, as there are both models in which you get the counterintuitive results of unmeasurable sets and those in which you don't, and the axioms are not strong enough to distinguish the two.

A simple way to view the first statement is that by both doubling the request rate and halving the processing time, you're effectively speeding up time by a factor of 2. If you were to record a video of the entire system, someone switching the parameters as you describe and someone putting the recorded video on a 2x fast forward would be fundamentally indistinguishable. So, naturally, the response time gets cut down on half as well.