hebdo

It seems that almost everyone here knows better than Google how to hire employees for Google. Given that you can see why it is trivial to see through hours-long hiring committee decisions in just two seconds.

Edit: as pointed out by others, the hiring decision probably does not take a few hours, but under an hour. Still, the point is valid.

Agreed. My point was that not continuing is difficult because it would mean going down, instead of up. Or in other words, I've been trying to guess the reason behind the lack of change, not question the intention itself.

And then do what? Isn't this the problem of non-decreasing expectations? Once you learn how to fly, you see yourself as a sucker every time you try to ordinarily walk.

Well, `a` could overload the "=" operator, in which case you would get `sizeof(a.operator=(12))`. But as far as pure C goes I believe you are right.

Edit: Via the C99 spec (http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/WG14/www/docs/n1256.pdf).

The sizeof operator yields the size (in bytes) of its operand, which may be an expression or the parenthesized name of a type. The size is determined from the type of the operand. The result is an integer. If the type of the operand is a variable length array type, the operand is evaluated; otherwise, the operand is not evaluated and the result is an integer constant.

The type of an assignment expression is the type of the left operand unless the left operand has qualified type, in which case it is the unqualified version of the type of the left operand.

So it is indeed the case that `sizeof(a = 12)` is equivalent to `sizeof(a)` in the C world.

Yes, of course. I just thought that flashbacks and other LSD complications are common knowledge. Take a look at this Wikipedia section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysergic_acid_diethylamide#Adv...

You are right about the addictiveness of nicotine. Also, alcohol is a really nasty one - withdrawal can be lethal in some cases. Even heroin does not do that.

I recommend you reading about the delta FOSB protein. There is promising research towards unifying all, or almost all, addictions with a single, coherent theory. In this light, drugs are really beginning to look very similar to one another.

The amount of prescription opioids being sold in the US is insane, this is my opinion on the subject. It cannot end well in the long run.

There are already millions of Americans that started their opioid adventure with oxycodone or hydrocodone, often coming from the "upper spheres". Addiction does not discriminate. Changing the name from amphetamine to Adderal will not give you more control over your addiction. You will have none, regardless of your income level.

You are right about the safety level though, this is about potential short-term complications. Prescription stuff is not contaminated, a doctor can give you some good advice, or a vial of emergency Naloxone.

I'm not an expert here actually; do you know what could be considered a more reliable program? I find addictions very interesting, especially given the discovery of the FOSB protein.

Well yes, you are right. But just the fact that something is difficult to overdose does not imply long-term safety of use. And as far as I know there are know connections between certain psychiatric issues and LSD usage. This is why I do not believe that "LSD is basically harmless".

How do you know LSD is mostly harmless?

This kind of rationalizations may ruin your entire life one day. You cannot and do not know where will any experimentation with drugs bring you to.

Remember that the first step of the twelve steps is "admitting that one cannot control one's alcoholism, addiction or compulsion". Finding reasons why you are more privileged than others makes this step even harder.

There is an alternative, equivalent definition of NP languages, through projections of certain polynomially bounded and P-verifiable relations. This is the strict mathematical base for the commonly spread and very valid observation, namely that for a decision problem to be in NP means for its solution to be verifiable in polynomial time.

Traveling salesman is in NP. There is no point debating this.

Edit: as others have pointed out: traveling salesman in in NP only when it is in its decision version. Otherwise the question does not make sense, as standard complexity classes are defined for decision problems, this is - for languages.

What do you mean? Can every citizen learn how much taxes has anybody else paid, including the incomes of the people outside the public sector?

Yes. Also, people tend to forget that out world is actually a pretty old place. The history of the economic scene of the last 2000 years teaches us that there is plenty of space for changes.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1_AD_to_2003_AD_Histo...

Yes. I don't really get it: why the burning need for fulfilling the definition of rebellion? Does it give you some sort of safety? Want to be both unique and socially accepted? This is an immediate contradiction, you know, as wide acceptance comes at a price of fitting oneself within one or more (couter)culture categories. Instead just do whatever you want man.

To prevent any confusion: here is a complete list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother%27s_Day#Dates_around_the...

The 50% return is just an input to the model, an assumption.