Now take that a step further with Environment Modules and you can source them from any shell or scripting language: https://modules.readthedocs.io/ (without creating a subinterpreter)
To me, "degenerate" means that it has a symmetry so that the different states are somehow identical (e.g. equal energy in a quantum system). If it's rectangle-ish (say, an imperfect hand-drawn rectangle) then it has 4 distinct equilibrium positions. Not sure if we're thinking of the same with "degenerate".
I stopped reading when he drew conclusions from men's lower resting heart rate. Wanted to keep reading, but I don't know what other BS is going through my filters undetected.
If your model is error-prone, having control structures, types and other compile-time checks is very valuable. It's harder to constrain arbitrary machine code to make something sensible.
Alternatively, it would be fun to see how much noise you can put into the signal and still decode it. Maybe using the knowledge of its structure, kind of how (I believe?) GPS reception works.
Couldn't we do slightly better with communication though? Instead of altruistically clearing the dishwasher in the office every time, we can have a rotating dishwasher duty. Is this opposed to anarchism? What about not having an explicit dishwasher duty, but just a socially-enforced expectation to contribute?
I'm not judging, but how exactly does that happen? Does the spoon fall into the trash while you're discarding something and you don't want to pick it up? Or do you throw out a container and miss that it had a spoon inside?
I thought the solution to the tragedy of the commons was institutions: we need a 1000-year old socially-enforced tradition of shunning hoarders and assigning dishwasher duty.
If there's basically no security, it would be more honest to do away with the "docker" group and just say that you need to give root to all docker users.
If they sell components or monitors then they only have to do one "simple" thing right. If they sell tablets/cellphones/laptops then they have to do a number of more complex stuff well enough that people will consider switching.
No, the orthodox advice is to get your information from your doctor or, if he's a doofus, directly from the local professional association (e.g. American Heart Association), who do the work of reviewing and weighing the literature for you.
Sometimes there's no way to be safe, e.g. aligning pumped lasers where you'd need one set of glasses for the pump wavelength and another for the final wavelength.
True, the function could in principle have a structure such that sampling it at m/2*n gives a misleading impression of its behavior outside that set. I can't think of an actual function which behaves like that, though (IANAM).
He's right that this question isn't fundamentally about the space of polynomials but rather about this particular arbitrary-looking distribution. But yeah, the question is interesting nonetheless.