riccardopa

When I see this written, I like to take it quite literally. It means your privacy has a value, literally it is valuable to us. And thus we will monetise it. Why would we not, it has value, after all?

N=35,178. Give us a break, its too small of a study to make any conclusion.

3:00 p.m. rise 3:05 Chivas Regal with the morning papers, Dunhills 3:45 cocaine3:50 another glass of Chivas, Dunhill 4:05 first cup of coffee, Dunhill 4:15 cocaine 4:16 orange juice, Dunhill 4:30 cocaine 4:54 cocaine 5:05 cocaine 5:11 coffee, Dunhills 5:30 more ice in the Chivas 5:45 cocaine, etc., etc. 6:00 grass to take the edge off the day ... etc ...

A yak, very finely shaved indeed!

Case in point - “given a list of numbers, return two numbers ...” is a poor question, because it does not state that the return values must come from the list given.

Super cool hack! The author uses defunctionalised continuations to build an abstract machine directly as a CTE. I guess the fixed point of the transition function is returned by the CTE ... He also alludes to using the Y combinator to build recursion in the toy language being constructed. Ace abuse of SQL.

I’m getting pretty sick of repeats of this ersatz story.

Maybe they should use their brains? (Instead of “growing some balls” I mean)

Sadly this article - seemingly an objective mathematical treatment of tuning - is simplistic to the point of worthlessness. No mention is made of stretched tuning, inharmonicity, or psycho-acoustic treatments of tuning. I expected more from Scientific American.

It's fully BuzzWord compliant then! (Sound like this is naked marketing post)