HN user
My understanding is that CH4 breakdown in the atmosphere isn’t a matter of exponential decay either but is (or could become) rate limited by OH radical availability. Such that the half life increases as more is in the atmosphere and it’s possible to totally outpace the breakdown even at constant emissions.
There are already non-self-driving cars that get speed limits from signs. I’ve seen that feature in a Honda for example. I imagine you’d have multiple sources like a max speed for that type of road as a fallback. And you need to read speed limit signage due to temporary limits. There’s also variable speed limit roads near me now and so you have to read those electronic signs unless the database is updated very often (though no humans seem to obey those limits).
They have somewhat different amounts of sugars by volume since the fat is removed, but they don’t have added sugar. The caloric fraction from sugar will be much higher though, maybe that’s what you’re reading?
Not a sphere, we know that can’t happen due to the topological constraint you brought up. Instead picture a float plane tiled by equilateral triangles. Now mark each vertex as either low, middle, or high such that every triangle has one of each. Push the low ones below the plane and the high vertices above the plane by some amount x. Now it’s a bumpy plane full of triangles, each one is isosceles and all identical.
I think that’s the only way to do this, but maybe there are more. Could we get a hyperbolic plane this way? Normally you squeeze extra triangles around each vertex to do that so I doubt it but maybe.
You stimulated out the situation where Monty Hall always picks the door without the prize. That’s exactly the standard Monty Hall problem. Change your code to instead allow him to choose the prize door (but never the player’s door). Then condition on him picking the goat door by dropping all the cases where he picked the prize door.
You’ll see that that changes it by discarding scenarios where switching is good (the prize is shown to you) but not ones where staying is bad.
Pedantry: it doesn’t have to be flat - for example a triangulated parabola could also have that configuration. You only get a topological result from just knowing edge and vertex counts. Now if the triangles are identical equilateral then you’re in business.
What if the triangles are all congruent but not equilateral? Can that even happen? That’s a fun one, so I won’t spoil it.
It’s not the same. Try stimulating it out if my argument above didn’t convince you. WLOG if you pick door 0 out of 0,1,2 and host picks door 1 always, then the the relevant value is in numpy:
correct = numpy.random.choice(3, 10000)
(correct[correct != 1] == 0).mean()
This gives 0.49 or similar when I run it.
This is what I thought at first but simulating it out, it’s not true. The strategy of switching doors works 2/3rds of the time but only if you allow picking the opened door (when it has the prize). That’s easy to see since it works whenever the prize isn’t behind your first choice. Conditioning on the opened door revealing a goat gives that strategy only 50% chance. After all, the opposite situation happens 1/3rd of the time and has a 100% success rate (since you can see the car), so this other case (opened door has a goat) has to have a 50% chance to add up to the unconditioned success rate. It’s still unintuitive to me though.
And further if these people were apparently also telling voters who to vote for, then they must have had all the election officials there in on it. Supporting a candidate like that is absolutely not allowed for the poll workers so this was blatant and didn’t care about whether it was uncovered. Any voter could have reported that behavior at any point. It was done out in the open.
I was a machine operator in the 2020 election in Philadelphia. It’s as you describe, everyone there (4-6 people) have to sign off at the end of the night on the totals. Two people are specifically one from each of the major parties, so it should be bipartisan. The numbers from the machine have to add up to the number of voters in the book. You’d need multiple accomplices to hide the mismatch, at least three people I think? Even then, you’d have to write down the names of who “voted” so it could come to light if any of those voters checked and saw that they had an unexpected vote. The machines did change so it may have been easier before.
This already exists in some fields though. Gene expression sequencing data is almost universally made public through the Gene Expression Omnibus website, and that’s quite storage intensive. It’s used since regulators and journals require it to be used.
That’s just what it shows after rounding up. The site correctly doesn’t let you enter 1c for velocity since it’s not possible.
As measured relative to the destination, yes, but if so then that means the passengers get crushed under infinite gs.
It makes sense that it would have weird connections but the big claim here is that it outputs those connections as rendered text despite failing to output actual text is was trained on and prompted with. That sounds very unexpected to me and requiring a lot of evidence (that would be easy to cherry pick), though this debunking wasn’t convincing either.
Since you’re not aware, a very common reason to talk in public is to gain something from one’s talking. The situation at hand looks a lot like that, and in particular gaining something at the expense of someone else in this case. If every ShowHN ended up directing everyone to an alternative project, no one would bother making Show HNs. Hence why it’s questionable about whether the top comment makes the world a better place, etc. That’s also why someone not apparently related to the library at hand could make the same comment without it being negatively received because they don’t appear to have anything to gain from it. I would instead encourage the poster to make their own Show HN the next day rather than hijacking an existing Show HN.
That’s only the case if there are only two articles. In general you’d be looking at the difference of two order statistics (of the uniform distribution). You could probably approximate this quite well as a Poisson process though (since there are so many articles) and so have exponentially distributed gap size.
Can someone elaborate on the meaning of the "Recursion is not an option" quote?
Good news! It’s been years since most government funding sources have required research they fund to be open access. The NSF has required this since 2016 and the NIH since 2008. The bad news is that journals charge incredible fees to researchers to make their articles open access and so your tax dollars go (via grants to researchers) to these publishers to fund this. Which would be fine if the prices were more reasonable but they just keep increasing.
So how embarrassed should I be for using Vue for small, static websites? I made a results page for some data my colleagues and I processed and there’sa bunch of categories. So there’s a selector and you pick one and Vue updates the page to show the data for that. It’s deployed to GitHub pages and the data is static so no server needed. I could have made it server side rendered and done all 500 different pages ahead of time and gotten faster load times and supported JS disabled browsing. But Vue is what I knew so I didn’t. I’m not a web developer, I just wanted to make a site. So have I sold my soul?
The actual volume stated in the article puts it at more like 0.51 cubic km (18 billion cubic feet), FYI.
The numbers from that article are just completely wrong. 32x bigger in volume would be just 3.2x the linear dimensions of the Great Pyramid. The volume numbers in the article are actually about 200x the Great Pyramid's volume (per Wikipedia) or a 5.9x scaling in the linear dimensions. That still is less than a mile across at the base. Their numbers would be about 30000x the volume of the Great Pyramid and so is several orders of magnitude off.
I’m also skeptical of the approach here but for the opposite reason. ML will conquer proofs by an AlphaZero approach of ignoring all human training data. You can generate arbitrary problems easily enough and doing some GAN like system of both generating problems that yet can’t be solved and a solver to solve them seems to obviate the need for human training data. I’d be really hesitant to be a PhD student in the GOFAI or natural language datamining approaches since I think this could easily be solved by ML in the next five or ten years by ML (specifically at least one well known unsolved research problem being solved by AI). I hope that I’m wrong… I like math as a human endeavor.
There’s relevant scenes to this in the Stephen Hawking biopic, The Theory of Everything.
On the contrary, R packaging system is too broken for R to be reliably reproducible. No one specifies package versions or R versions. Base R has no way to install a specific version of a package. There’s a package that lets you do that, but well, you might need a specific version of it. Particularly if you need to run an old version of R for reproducing an old script it may be impossible to use any standard tool to install the correct packages thanks to this problem - the version of devtools that install.packages gets won’t be compatible with your old R but you need that package to request another version. Instead everyone just ignores it and hopes package versions don’t matter.
I don’t see that as relevant to my points. My main point is that an officer can easily abuse this law due to asymmetric information/outcome despite the limits in the text. The officers that would do this are exactly the ones that need to be recorded.
I’m shocked at the support for this here. It doesn’t matter that it only applies to within 8 feet and if it’s an interaction with someone else. No one should have to know a law about whether they can record police or not. What are you going to do, look up the law when an officer tells you to stop recording? Remember if you refuse it’s a 30 day jail time you could be facing. Want to take bets on whether the officer is lying or you misremembered the allowed distance and conditions? What if a second police officer then approaches you, do they get to box you out by just standing there? There’s no reason this can’t be handled by generic laws for not interfering with police that I’m sure already exist. It’s either pointlessly redundant or will be abused.
Someone believing either the 2016 or 2020 US elections were “stolen” in any meaningful sense of the word would be under a similar level of propaganda to someone thinking that the Russian invasion is to stop Ukrainians killing each other, yes.
I think you’re confusing sets with another concept. I don’t know much about those other languages you list but I believe python’s typing.Union is more similar to what you list. Sets are just unordered data collections with unique elements.
Maybe I'm missing it, but does he actually state any views on homosexuality in this? Other than the implied views from having voted for Sanders and stating that he's 'struggled' and 'shifted' on the subject (shifted to what?). It's a non-answer and I don't understand the praise in that thread for it. "Why can't we just TALK about it?" he says, in a thread where he could very well just talk about it. "God loves his children" makes no distinctions between saints, murderers, and homosexuals, yet we know God disapproves of murder, right? So it's a non-statement with regards to homosexuality.
His two links are 404s but the Internet Archive versions of those don't seem to contain answers either (they don't mention the topic as far as I can tell).
I’m studying too mostly on my own for about 2.5 years. I can read a most characters I see in the wild, though that still leaves enough that understanding the text is hard or impossible. OverallI find reading much easier to study than listening. I haven’t used DuoLingo and would recommend HelloChinese instead. But that’s only a few months to half a year of material; you have to move on. After that I used an Anki deck of HSK vocab.
Are you reading anything? Find graded readers like from Mandarin Companion and read those (start with ones that seem too easy).
Have you learned to write any of the characters? I don’t think you need to learn to write all of them, but learning at least 50 or so got me to understand and recognize the characters better in my reading as well.
The Pleco app is a nice reader letting you look up words just by tapping on them. Also turn off pinyin in any study apps you’re using, just use characters (except for in answers to verify you’re right).