User3456335

Surely, if the poles can't be deleted then which node is chosen from a bunkbed will not affect the connectedness probability, which would make it impossible to find a counterexample, right? What am I missing here?

PS Depends on what conjecture we refer to here.

The paper seems to have a definition where bed posts are never deleted, i.e. they are all assigned probability 1 in which case the conjecture is obviously true.

The counterexample seems to rely on correlations between edge deletions which makes no sense because the deletions should be independent (in the definition I'm seeing on Wikipedia).

I could be wrong here because I haven't read it in detail but on first sight, it looks like there are some serious issues with mathematical rigour here.

I feel like it will get worse and worse until people will actually care about privacy again and then we'll take proper measures. Although Chrome disabling cookies seems like a step in the right direction

I thought this was very cool but then I realized that in Dutch it is the same. Happiness = "Geluk" = Luck. Strangely, we have no word for lucky, and we will simply say that someone often "has luck".

There's so much hidden in homonyms, it almost feels illegal to mention it.

If it was only investigators using my data, I'd be much happier...

Interesting. Are you sure it's the language and not the programming style? There doesn't seem to be a reason to prevent you from writing maintainable Python code.

Yes, but all of these are essentially all because the existing code is already based on C(++). We should be able to move to Rust sooner than people think.

I've yet to see a valid scenario where C++ is superior to Rust, Python and Go.

Use Python. If you need concurrency, then use Go. If you need even more performance, use Rust (using unsafe Rust only for the parts that need it). For the highest performance stuff, maybe consider C for critical parts only.

C++ is not safe. It's a minefield of things that compile but are memory management mistakes. And then you're like "Look, I have a map of the minefield. If we just make sure we don't step on any mines, we are completely fine."

Inform me of whether the pilot can adjust their seat? What am I supposed to do with that info?

Bro, where do you get your food? Do you grow it in your house? Where do you get your water from? Hell, where do you get your air from? How do you think getting a security system fixes it?

It might depend on whether you do a lot of counting in your non-native tongue. Since I studied maths in English (not my native language), I also do counting in English when I'm thinking in English because to me counting in English is just as easy as in my mother tongue.

So what exactly does happen when you admit you don't know a thing? And what's worse: admitting you don't know a thing or showcasing you don't know a thing by presuming the wrong thing? Intriguing stuff.

Why is a random textbook so high up? And why is it on a website I've never heard of before (no starch)?

My point is that perhaps there is a reason that this chromosome causes this issue when an additional copy is present. If other chromosomes do not cause the same issues, why not? Why would that same reason not hold for chromosome 21?

Perhaps the existence of atypical "weaker" children promotes compassion in the culture ultimately leading to better outcomes for the culture as a whole.

Ahh yeah I was trying to help you repurpose these circuits given the new information. But perhaps that's not possible.

It sounds very similar to what happens with love. In my experience, at least, when you love someone you build up these circuits that care about the other person and you cannot break them down, it seems. You can ignore them but then there's this part of your brain you're ignoring.

So perhaps you could say you were/are literally in love with the idea.

So you've now compared feminist movements to Christian evangelists. Do you think christian evangelists are important and deserve our attention even if the majority of christians don't care about them? How about feminists if women don't care about them?

Tbf, half the linguistics discipline thought that language's grammar was somehow hardcoded into our brain, which is clearly ridiculous if you look at how LLMs work, so you're not the only one who had misconceptions.

Perhaps you can turn your idea around slightly into finding a language that finds a balance between formality and universality, rather than computers and humans. Because even though computers now speak our language they do not use it in a logical way at all (arguably because we humans don't).

And while mathematics is very formal it has a lot of trouble expressing ideas from different branches that aren't as formal. Things like fuzzy logics have been created and many things like that but they are still very much on the formal side.

Perhaps you could even derive an academic language for a specific field, perhaps standardizing between synonymous constructions. You could even use LLMs to accelerate the process. Maybe LLMs are a good thing that makes your work easier!

Most of these things do not need to be public though. Whatever your existing setup is, you can build a box around it so that suspicious people are not allowed in. Then you only have the outer box to really worry about.

Of course if you want to enable people to make important decisions from their homes, you have two options, build a box around their homes too or accept that they are outside of the box and treat all of their activity as suspicious.

Perhaps an analogy with other crime can help here.

Just because your store can be broken into doesn't mean you can't take measures that make it much more difficult.

It's not that security mechanisms in a store are pointless, simply because you can't defend against the most advanced criminals.

You can make things much more difficult for criminals so they'll go to another store instead. Or at least they'll have to put in more effort as well.

Perhaps having a burnout is highly correlated with thinking you have a burnout. Does that make any test for it a sham?

Does the test perhaps make sure that there is sufficient agreement on the definition of burnout? Perhaps it ensures that someone doesn't just say they are burnt out because someone in their life told them they might be? Perhaps it helps people realize they have a burnout because they didn't know the definition? Perhaps it provides those who don't have a burnout with confidence that they don't?

It sounds like you're a bit too invested in the issue if you're literally shaking.

You're making the assumption that it is all caused by hardware or software malfunction in the sending of an IP packet to the target server. However the first step is usually a DNS lookup. A list would look more like this:

1. DNS lookup fails because the DNS server address configured at the computer OR router is incorrect 2. DNS lookup fails because the configured DNS server is down 3. DNS lookup fails because some firewall is blocking requests to it 4. DNS lookup fails because the network was congested 5. DNS lookup fails because of interference in the Wifi channel from other Wifi networks 6. Etc. Etc.

So indeed, usually when the network is down you only get "DNS lookup failed". Because the actual reason may be complicated. Of course, usually it is due to your computer not being connected to a router so usually the error message hints at that (in layperson's terms: not connected to the internet). So that's why browsers hint at it being your connection, i.e. ethernet or wifi.

But there is no way to make sure. All we know is that DNS seems to fail. The reason it fails could be any part of its configuration which is spread out across physical systems and software components.

The best we can say: probably your ethernet/wifi connection. If we trust that none of the other components are failing then it must be your connection that is failing.

It's like trying to find out what's wrong in 1+2+32+4=10. Sure, it seems like the 32 should be a 3. But maybe the 10 should be a 39. There is no way to tell anymore. All we can do is make an educated guess.

You can learn a lot of that from reading Dostoyevski. At least, from what I have read so far. It's painful to read (injustice, pessimism, disappointment) so I haven't gotten very far yet but it feels more honest.

My only point is that you use the term PFAS for a different group of compounds than multiple different official sources define it as. I'm just pointing out that that looks strange to me as a layperson.

If this were a joke, the answer would be "Keep cool!"

PTFE is literally the first example mentioned in the Sample chemicals section of the wiki of PFAS, which you linked. Regardless of your views on whether Teflon is harmful, your comment contains misinformation. Teflon/PTFE is PFAS according to the OECD definition and the Wiki page.

Your point regarding whether all PFAS is harmful may very well be interesting but cannot be taken seriously if it is accompanied by blatant misinformation.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Also, even if people cross the barrier it doesn't mean it is not there or isn't big. But thanks for the compliment!

Now I realize why it's called a field. I always thought of a physical field but this makes way more sense. If there's enough division in a group, it is considered a field.

It's not really fraud though. If we get paid to upvote each other, the problem is not that we upvote each other but that there's someone paying us to do so.