606 karma · joined May 2, 2021
What fraction of their first quarter profit should Amazon pay for the alleged activities at Ring, all but one of which was before Amazon bought them? The last being within three months of acquisition.
They backed out of a climate pledge (50% delivery emissions reduction by 2030), not "The" Climate Pledge (100% cross-sector carbon neutral by 2040 and a few other things).
Intuitively, if the two planets have orbiting periods that are not basically identical, then after long enough they will also have long stretches of time where they are on opposite sides of the star (with a slight caveat if the periods are rational multiples of each other, but in either case their positions will be asymptotically uncorrelated). On the other hand, if they are close and have the same period, I'd expect their gravitational pulls would eventually merge them together unless they become a binary planet system.
But I have no physics/astrophysics background so this could easily all be stupid.
2. Ads in the rest of the OS.
And the famous Steiner tree result holds only in highly structured metrics like the Euclidean plane and some minor generalizations. For general metrics there's a lower bound of around 1.01 unless P=NP.
From a quick read of the paper, it looks like the only classical algorithms they compare to are greedy, random search, and simulated annealing (which is more or less random plus greedy). For random or semi-random instances like those described in this writeup, there are oftentimes substantially better classical algorithms (both random and deterministic) that one can use to try to find dense components (including, ironically, so-called "spectral" algorithms which are entirely classical).
They don't provide the specific parameter setting so I can't give a single definitively better method, but I'm relatively unimpressed by their finding that a somewhat heavily engineered approach can defeat a handful of braindead classical algorithms.
Does the first number have an extra zero or is the second number missing one?
There is a write-up by Cohen and Nissim [1] where they analyze the privacy statutes in the GDPR and derive a formal definition of privacy, which they call Privacy Singling Out, intended to match the text of the document.
They then show how PSO compares to other privacy definitions, and in particular that Differential Privacy implies PSO (and thus satisfies GDPR). Differential Privacy, in turn, is basically an entire field on its own, with entire textbooks [2] and workshops [3]. It also dominates many privacy-focused conferences, and has been used by US Census Bureau.
There are plenty of truly GDPR-compliant analytics one can do. It just takes some effort to understand how.
[1] https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1914598117
[2] https://www.cis.upenn.edu/~aaroth/Papers/privacybook.pdf
Earth mass divided by 2^64 is roughly 357 tons. There are roughly 2^33 humans on earth, so 2^64 is "only" a billion or two addresses per person; tha's far fewer addresses than the number of human cells out there.
> FBI: Collectively, victims of property crimes (excluding arson) suffered losses estimated at $16.4 billion in 2018.
Those aren't the same statistic. The cost of property (or any other kind of) crime is the sum of the losses plus the cost of prevention. If typical prevention costs more than is lost (the security industry is estimated at over 200B by some sources), then that figure should be compared to the combined security+loss cost of white collar crime. I don't think the ratio will get particularly close to 1, but it should shrink from 20.
Also,
> Article: Three-quarters of white-collar criminal offenders are white males.
A majority of the $300B figure computed by the FBI is in the form of foreign economic espionage and (not-necessarily-domestic) IP theft. I'm going to doubt that the major players in that are overwhelmingly white men.
The article (edit: apparently an extended ad) appears to have been written with a conclusion in mind before the facts were cherry picked sans context to support it.
I don't think this is fair at all.
If a couple pre-teens get third degree burns because an arsonist burned their (parents') house down, would you wish you lived in a place where one's home being an average of .02 degrees warmer over your lifetime was the bar for a serious arsony problem?
His complaint isn't about the Palo Alto of 1990, it's about the Palo Alto of today. What did or did not happen in 1990 is immaterial. Same as the pre-teens in the years leading up to the fire.
It's not wishy washy, it has a precise meaning that can be both derived and, typically, refuted.
It is of no solace to any of the 40 billion individual chickens presently in factory farms that some others may be raised in a coup in a backyard of someone's hypothetical uncle's house. And the hypothetical existence of said uncle has no relevance to the act of paying others to abuse birds in farms, which is where every single person reading this is getting either the vast majority or all of their bird flesh.
Why would one who inflicts or remunerates mistreatment, slavery, and death upon animals expect to be shielded from criticism on the count of it potentially hurting their feelings?
Add a scaled version of the Weierstrass function instead if you don't want a derivative at all.
One can pass the new graph, G ∪ G' plus all the intermediate edges, into the already existing A* implementation to search for an optimal s-t' path. This works as long as the heuristic for v is also admissible for v', but most are. I think all three of these algorithms could in principle run into problems for certain uncommon admissible heuristics.
The same, of course, could be said for any other celestial body, currently observed or otherwise.