buo

I have installed Spyder both from its own repo, and using Anaconda, and I don't have Kite. I don't recall doing anything special during installation.

I agree 100%. Threading is essential and I can't understand why modern (and otherwise fine) tools like Discourse don't support it.

Thanks! I was missing exactly that part of the process.

My understanding is that the javascript in a web page executes in the client. How can the page owner obtain the video lists?

Firefox is my main browser on Linux, but sometimes I browse using Chromium. Both feel equally snappy to me -- even though I have hundreds of tabs open in Firefox and several add-ons, and none on Chromium.

For people who like text-based programs, I'd recommend newsboat: https://newsboat.org/

To be more clear: I have avoided the commercial use of smartphone technology as it exists today, because for me its drawbacks are unacceptable. So, I am not a user of that technology, but I do not oppose the basic principle of mobile, universal, cheap computing and communication.

I can see your point now. Indeed they can feel inescapable.

One thing I try to do is to minimize how much revenue they get out of me. For example, I use uBlock Origin and uMatrix to block their ads and scripts, their cookies, Google Analytics, etcetera. I hope they are losing money on me, that'd make my day!

I didn't mean to say that I have had absolutely no interaction with any existing Apple or Google service or technology. I'm neither a fundamentalist nor a hermit.

Rather, whenever it is my choice, I prefer to select products and technologies that don't belong to Apple, Google or similar companies.

I have avoided commercial smartphone products entirely, yes, and very much on purpose.

I have not avoided technology in general, not by a long shot.

I use a $20 LG feature phone. I don't know what OS it runs, but it's not Android.

As an alternative solution that doesn't depend on defining what a monopoly is, or how to boycott a large brand, how about forcing companies to apply the same terms to everybody?

I think at least part of the core of the problem is that Apple applies their subscription requirements differently depending on who owns the app. That is what I think needs to stop. If Yo has to do it one way, then Google, Microsoft, Netflix and Spotify should have to do it the same way too.

What do you mean?

I don't use Apple or Google products and I use technology every day.

I'd say they both are more than adequate, and allow for some pretty advanced workflows, since they expose a lot more tools with more fine-grained control than Lightroom.

For anyone who tries these programs, many of their developers and users hang out at https://discuss.pixls.us/

Interesting. A 2-D being in flatland would consider the inside of a closed, empty circle to be "dark", but from 3-D we can still see inside it. Maybe one could postulate a 4-D source of light.

My favorite book on the subject is Telecommunication Networks: Protocols, Modeling and Analysis by Mischa Schwartz. It's one of the rare books that go very deep into the math, but explains it almost step by step, so it is very accessible.

If you allow questions with n possible answers, then you need at least ceil(log_n(7e9)) questions, where log_n means logarithm base n.

I don't know if there is a simple formula for the case where different questions allow different number of answers.

For an example of an open-source GSM implementation that would allow one to build a base station, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenBTS . There are lots of videos about it on youtube where you can see it in action.

There are some incredible Mandelbulb renderings on DeviantArt, for example:

http://jim373.deviantart.com/art/Hall-of-the-Goblin-King-276...

http://mandelwerk.deviantart.com/art/13th-Secret-Of-Cathedra...

I don't disagree, but don't completely agree either, that free trade is always a blessing.

- Mexico is a party to NAFTA and other trade agreements with South American and Asian countries, but 37 million mexicans survive on less than US $5.00 a day.

- Good macroeconomic metrics can obscure or mask what is actually happening on the ground. In this sense, trade agreements can bring massive grief to large sections of the population. Going back to Mexico, the lift of tariffs on articles like clothing and shoes have decimated the local industry, leaving thousands of bankrupt businesses and families.

Probably the hatred for free trade has been caused by the way it's been implemented, favoring large corporate interests, and trying to maximize macroeconomic metrics to the detriment of microeconomics. This is probably the reason this new agreement is being negotiated in secret too: it will have negative impact on the lives of many people.

I use Arch in my personal machine but Linux Mint for work (http://www.linuxmint.com/about.php). It is also based on Debian and Ubuntu, but they're not set on simplifying the desktop the way Ubuntu is. In fact, they have an experimantal desktop (cinnamon, http://cinnamon.linuxmint.com/) which aims to be a modern desktop for people who want more than gnome offers, and looks great.

As a Linux user, what I miss most when I use Windows is focus-follows-mouse.

I have four virtual desktops mapped to WinKey+{a,s,z,x}. I've used this scheme for so long that the keys are hardwired in my brain and I can switch desktops without even thinking about it. In particular, I don't care if the window manager organizes the desktops in a matrix or linearly, since I don't need a visual representation.

As an aside, my biggest gripe with Ubuntu is that they hard code the Win key to something else, which breaks my desktop switching habits.

I see plenty of ads:

http://imgur.com/bMUkCwi

The same search on DDG gets me exactly one ad.

The point is that, in the context of the paper, you are supposed to group consecutive sequence elements and find their distribution.

Consider the sequence 1,2,1,2,1,2,1.... When you take elements one at a time, you have a uniform distribution, but the sequence is clearly not random. However, when you take elements two at a time, you have; 12,12,12,12... In this case, the distribution is not uniform, which indicates non-randomness.

The paper's definition implies that you're grouping the sequence elements like this and, for all groupings, you find uniform distributions. This is of course common knowledge to experts, and is made clear in the body of the paper.

I take your point, I should have phrased my thoughts differently. I did start with "I think", but I could have made it clearer that I didn't mean to criticize the paper, but rather to invite explanations from people who know the subject better than I do.

Thanks.

I'm sorry for being unclear.

The authors define a a PRNG as a sequence such that, if you find its distribution (histogram), it resembles the uniform distribution (all values appear the same number of times).

In 1,2,1,2,1,2,..., all values appear the same number of times and its histogram is uniform. However, it is not random. It is clearly not random -- so it is distinguishable from a uniform "true random" sequence, which was my point.

However, as was explained to me by another commenter, what I missed is that you may group a number of consecutive numbers together and find the histogram of that, and, in that case, my sequence fails to have a uniform histogram.

So, at this point I'm willing to accept that the author's definition is correct and I just had a hole in my understanding.

That's a good point, and that may well be what the authors meant.

Since all PRNGs are periodic (at least all I now of), the definition eventually breaks down. I can see how it can be made to work with a bit of extra formalism, though.

Thanks.

My intention is not to criticize the paper, which I don't even claim to understand. I just thought the authors definition of a PNRG is wrong (or at least incomplete) and that caught my attention. If I'm wrong, I hope somebody will set me right.