573 karma · joined October 30, 2020
Maybe it's technically infeasible, but it seems to me like the main benefit we would get out of a mission like this is to actually have another craft standing by to record it as the collision happens.
At one point, I had to prove n / 15 + n / 4 + (2 * n / 3 + 1) <= n, for positive n. Seems simple right? But first you have to multiply by 60 so that you're working over actual naturals. But then you have to contend with the fact that n / 15 * 15 <= n itself needs proof (they're not just equal, since n / 15 actually represents the floor or that quotient). Automatic tactics that simplify things for you help some, but it still ends up being a good 8 lines of code for such a trivial statement. When things like this can be handled fully automatically, then it will be ready for mainstream use.
It is fun to fight the proof checker though! :)
My calculations tell me this is not true for Mars though. The next time we do this, we should send it to the L2 of Mars.
Trying to make out like Howey is some obscure precedent from decades ago which the SEC is nitpicking over. The Howey test is the test applied to determine if something is an investment contract.
Take the sunshield - the huge tarp-looking thing that you always see below the telescope itself. My understanding is that this is critical for JWST to see in the deep infrared, since otherwise heat will interfere with the imaging. Probably a lot of money was spent on the development of this. But if that money had just been spent on 20 other telescopes, none of them would have been able to capture that part of the infrared spectrum that JWST will.
I don't really understand this. If the documentation doesn't exist next to the code it documents, isn't there a risk that someone will change the code without updating the docs, leading to confusing or wrong docs?
This extension has been more effective for me than any other at cutting down how much youtube I watch. Maybe the biggest factor in this is that it doesn't ban me from youtube entirely - When I've tried extensions like that in the past, I've always ended up uninstalling the extension when I needed to watch a youtube video for work. This way, I can watch a little, but the lack of constant new recommendations keeps me from spending hours and hours on the site.
> Clickbait is a text or a thumbnail link that is designed to attract attention and to entice users to follow that link and read, view, or listen to the linked piece of online content, being typically deceptive, sensationalized, or otherwise misleading.
I don't see the title as misleading. I expected to see a kernel mailing list email from Linus where he says what he doesn't like about Github merges and that's what I got.
Well as he states, these checks are not turned on by default. I have trouble seeing why someone who liked these extensions enough to turn them on manually would feel condescended to by them.
To speak to this question: Suppose you were going to build a calculator program on your computer. You might start with integers and have addition multiplication and subtraction. All perfectly fine. Even if the numbers are very big you can still represent them by using multiple memory slots.
The you add division, and since you don’t want rounding errors in your calculator, you add rational numbers. Can rational numbers still be represented by a computer? Yes, because they are a countable infinity, you can represent them just as easily as you can represent integers.
You would like your calculator to be as complete as possible so you keep adding functions like roots, exp, log, sin, et cetera. But no matter how many functions you add, you’ll never be able to represent every real number. This is useful to know so that nobody ever tries to build a computer that does this.
So when people talk about a particular company "achieving" level 4 or level 5, I don't know what they mean. Maybe they mean achieving it "safely" which is murky, since any system can crash. Maybe they mean achieving it legally on public roads, in which case, it's a legal achievement (although depending on what regulatory hoops they had to go through, maybe they had to make technical achievements as well).
[1] : https://web.archive.org/web/20161120142825/http://www.sae.or...
Then I opened it in incognito mode and it was making a point about the commoditization of the web.
Just use browser extensions, folks.
What? Here is "Musk himself" saying in a tweet that Falcon 9 only needs to be reusable 3 times to make sense economically.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1295883862380294144?s=20
I don't think this is right. The apple pdf on the features says
> With the initial match threshold chosen as described above, iCloud Photos servers learn nothing about any of the user's photos unless that user's iCloud Photos account exceeded the match threshold.
This implies to me that they are using some sort of encryption to prevent iCloud from learning even how many matches there are until the threshold is met.
Cool to see how the iconic fear of snakes starts out as a vague desire to make the character vulnerable, and grows from there.
Of all the planets, which is Earth closest to on average?
To explain things even further, let's say that the perceptual algorithm makes a false positive 1% of the time. That is, 1 in every 100 completely normal pictures are incorrectly matched with some picture in the child pornography database. There's no reason to think (at least none springs to mind, happy to hear suggestions) that a false positive in one image will make it any more likely to see a false positive in another image. Thus, if you have a phone with 1000 pictures on it, and it takes 40 trigger a match, there's less than a 1 in a trillion probability that this would happen if the pictures are all normal.
Of course, you could do something similar with this visual algorithm, but I guess the idea is you are using more of the human visual system so it's harder.
Well 5B USD may not be an impossible sum for some corporations and nations, but for some actors this is a barrier, yes.
I'm not necessarily trying to say such an attack is out of the question, I'm just trying to elucidate the question of the difference between PoS security and PoW security. I'm not convinced that your argument about the possibility of a covert accumulation of staking power does anything to distinguish PoS from PoW. You could just as easily invest that 5 Billion to build a chip fabrication plant, use that plant to covertly build ASICs, and surprise the Bitcoin network with a 51% attack.