hexane360

The Colorado Court of Appeals actually mentions a case involving a wedding photographer decided by the New Mexico Supreme Court, Elane Photography LLC v. Willock.

NM SCOTUS decided even more strongly, arguing that the New Mexico Human Rights Act, "prohibits public accommodations from making any distinction in the services they offer to customers on the basis of protected classifications. The NMHRA does not permit businesses to offer a limited menu of goods or services to customers on the basis of a status that fits within one of the protected categories." (I'm Quoting Lexis, not the ruling)

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-e... https://law.justia.com/cases/new-mexico/supreme-court/2013/3...

I'm not sure I agree with this ruling, but it's unclear whether it would have been decided the same way if the Court had interpreted Elane Photography's services as an artistic work rather than a utilitarian service. NM SCOTUS had a few arguments, but basically it decided that anti-discriminatino laws aren't compelled speech because Elane Photography could just decide not to be a company performing a service:

>However, unlike the laws at issue in Wooley and Barnette, the NMHRA does not require Elane Photography to recite or display any message. It does not even require Elane Photography to take photographs. The NMHRA only mandates that if Elane Photography operates a business as a public accommodation, it cannot discriminate against potential clients based on their sexual orientation.

>The Barnette Court noted that the dissenting students’ choice not to salute the flag “[did] not bring them into collision with rights asserted by any other individual.” 319 U.S. at 630. That is not the case here, where Elane Photography’s asserted right not to serve same-sex couples directly conflicts with Willock’s right under Section 28-1-7(F) of the NMHRA to obtain goods and services from a public accommodation without discrimination on the basis of her sexual orientation.

>The same situation is true in the instant case. Like the law in Rumsfeld, the NMHRA does not require any affirmation of belief by regulated public accommodations; instead, it requires businesses that offer services to the public at large to provide those services without regard for race, sex, sexual orientation, or other protected classifications. Section 28-1-7(F). The fact that these services may involve speech or other expressive services does not render the NMHRA unconstitutional. See Rumsfeld, 547 U.S. at 62 (“The compelled speech to which the law schools point is plainly incidental to the [law’s] regulation of conduct, and it has never been deemed an abridgment of freedom of speech or press to make a course of conduct illegal merely because the conduct was in part initiated, evidenced, or carried out. Dale also was decided on freedom of association grounds. Id. at 644. Elane Photography has not argued that its right of expressive association was violated. by means of language, either spoken, written, or printed.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Elane Photography is compelled to take photographs of same-sex weddings only to the extent that it would provide the same services to a heterosexual couple. See id. at 62 (speech assisting military recruiters was “only ‘compelled’ if, and to the extent, the school provide[d] such speech for other recruiters”).

Even taking that line on face value (although I would argue that the rest of the quotes portray a different story), the distinction between "standard service" and "custom work" is nigh-useless when divorced from the content of the custom service, which weren't discussed ("Craig and Mullins promptly left Masterpiece without discussing with Phillips any details of their wedding cake."). If a diner said "we'll make you a hamburger, but we won't make one without onions", and said that only because of a customer's race, that would be transparent discrimination.

In other words, you can refuse custom work that goes against your principles, but you can't refuse custom work to someone that goes against your principles. And in the Masterpiece case, the content of the custom work wasn't discussed.

You claimed "the baker in your example was willing to bake them a cake. They were never denied a cake". That's 1) referencing a specific baker (the one GP mentioned with a definite article) and 2) a positive claim about that baker.

From the very first page of the Colorado Court of Appeals order on Craig v. Masterpiece Cakeshop https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/16-111...:

>In July 2012, Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece, a bakery in Lakewood, Colorado, and requested that Phillips design and create a cake to celebrate their same-sex wedding. Phillips declined, telling them that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of his religious beliefs, but advising Craig and Mullins that he would be happy to make and sell them any other baked goods. Craig and Mullins promptly left Masterpiece without discussing with Phillips any details of their wedding cake.

>The parties did not dispute any material facts. Masterpiece and Phillips admitted that the bakery is a place of public accommodation and that they refused to sell Craig and Mullins a cake because of their intent to engage in a same-sex marriage ceremony.

The distinction Masterpiece argued was that they were discriminating against Craig and Mullins on the basis of gay marriage, not on the basis of being gay. See e.g. Elane Photography v Willock for why this argument doesn't work.

This discussion has been rehashed over and over again, but you're wrong on the facts of this case.

The owner claimed that he would bake any cake, but the evidence shows he refused before they discussed any styling or even what the cake was. He would sell them cupcakes or prebaked items, but wouldn't bake any cake, arguing it was compelled speech. The problem is that in the absence of asking for a cake which specifically mentions gay people, the owner's line of argumentation works equally well for refusing to cook a burger for black people at a diner. By being a business owner in a community, you give up certain civil liberties because you have increased power to infringe upon the civil rights of others.

Your analogies all fail because they consider situations where the customer asks the seller for a different, non-standard product. But that didn't happen; they were refused before any products were discussed.

Fahrenheit was actually defined so 0 °F was the freezing point of brine, and 100 °F was roughly human body temperature.

During prohibition, the government tried things along those lines, as well as basically any poisonous or unpleasant chemical they could get their hands on. However, the problem was that anything not sufficiently alcohol-like could be pretty easily distilled out by bootleggers. What was much harder to distill out was large quantities of exceptionally-poisonous methanol.

Nowadays, of course, alcohol is cheap and plentiful enough that there's no incentive to re-nature it, and we can get away with much less extreme measures. In many cases, the alcohol won't contain any methanol at all, and may even be drinkable.

A good article on the government's arms race against bootlegging: https://slate.com/technology/2010/02/the-little-told-story-o... (also, the author's book "The Poisoner's Handbook")

This is just how you write headlines though. It's not "<some person you've never heard of> proposes bill", it's "California state senator proposes bill". It's not "<some random engineer> makes new technology", it's "Engineer makes new technology".

I don't think it's related to trying to devalue 'YouTuber' as a profession.

For it to not be nonsense, you need to explain:

a) How it's possible, even hypothetically for citizens to simultaneously have both "the right to speak their minds and voice their opinions in public" and "without fear of being shamed or shunned". The two are contradictory.

b) How that superposition is "a fundamental right as citizens of a free country", which Americans once had but are losing.

Unfortunately, that guarantees the arc length of the slice to be constant (at pi inches), but not the total area (= d * 1/2 in). I believe this is why larger pizzas make more sense to cut into squares, as long thin pieces are harder to slice and to eat.

>If you had read the code you wouldn't have such a high opinion of it!

That's probably true of most code :P

>Definitely arguable which way it should go and I think for clarity it's much better to use different names anyway. It's not because they don't understand anything.

I agree it's debatable which behavior is better. The reason I claim a lack of understanding is because of a comment (albeit likely a flippant one) one of the maintainers made in the issue I linked:

>When a variable or parameter has a declared (annotated) type, it's the job of a type checker to validate that all values assigned to that variable are compatible with the declared type. This is how type checking works in all languages that I'm familiar with.

This just isn't true; many strongly-typed languages allow variable shadowing, especially within lexical scopes. Some, like Rust, even allow rebinding within the same scope.

>most people use the crap one (Mypy)

idk, I wouldn't go this far. Mypy is slow, but it's probably the most correct, and it allows for configurations pyright refuses to. For instance, the maintainers won't add an option to allow variable redefinition/shadowing, seemingly because they don't understand the difference between a variable and a binding (https://github.com/microsoft/pyright/discussions/2441). As for Pyre, last I checked it had a lot of false positives that Mypy doesn't.

Besides all that, some people want to use a checker that isn't exclusively developed by a huge company (Microsoft, Google or Facebook).

Debian, Ubuntu, and Android names are all alphabetical, so you can tell which versions are newer and older. That's all version numbers are really useful for anyways.

*almost always: https://blog.cloudflare.com/details-of-the-cloudflare-outage...

>The Lua WAF uses PCRE internally and it uses backtracking for matching and has no mechanism to protect against a runaway expression.

https://blog.cloudflare.com/making-the-waf-40-faster/

>Back in July 2019, the WAF transitioned from using a regular expression engine based on PCRE to one inspired by RE2, which is based around using a deterministic finite automaton (DFA) instead of backtracking algorithms. This change came as a result of an outage where an update added a regular expression which backtracked enormously on certain HTTP requests, resulting in exponential execution time.

>After the migration was finished, we saw no measurable difference in CPU consumption at the edge, but noticed execution time outliers in the 95th and 99th percentiles decreased, something we expected given RE2's guarantees of a linear time execution with the size of the input.

Actually, because differentiation is a limiting process, this relies on the bounded convergence theorem or monotone convergence theorem. However, I imagine this would hold in most distributions under consideration.

>Cast iron has a much lower thermal conductivity

I thought this was true (it makes some sense), but the data seems to show the opposite. This source has cast iron at 52 W/m-K, and 1% carbon steel at 43 W/m-K (0.5% carbon steel is at 54 W/m-K). Now, this obviously depends a lot on the processing and heat treatment of each material. But at the very least, the difference is not massive.

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-meta...

One way I've found is to dig into C/C++ extensions to Python. The Python C API reference is very helpful: https://docs.python.org/3/c-api/index.html

It can be quite fun to implement a simple data structure (tree, queue, etc.). in C and bind it to Python.

Otherwise, you can get a lot of dirty details by reading the source to complicated/magical libraries (e.g. pickle).

Sometimes it's used to mean "defined as". I.e. you're saying "Let <LHS> be the value computed by <RHS>", rather than saying "<LHS>, which is defined elsewhere, is equal in value to <RHS>".

Other times it's used to indicate equivalence or congruence with respect to some equivalency class. In other words, it's a weaker form of equality, the opposite of how's it's used in, say, Javascript. For instance, (1, 2) === (2, 4) over the equivalency class of the rational numbers.

The latter is how it's used in this context. a === b (mod c) means that "a is congruent to b under the mod c equivalency relation".

I agree it's impractical, but I believe you're double counting the force on the cable. Each end of the cable pulls with 1.3 MN, which means that the cable itself can be in static equilibrium (in the rotating frame of reference). The same is true if you hang a 1.3 MN space station from the ceiling. The space station pulls down with a force of 1.3 MN, while the ceiling pulls up with a force of 1.3 MN.

>I don't know what it is about music but for some reason there's like a tradition in online forums of people going on and on about the nuances of the financial deals in the music industry by people who have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.

I suspect this is 2 factors: 1) music is something people care about, therefore they have opinions on it (whether or not these are justified). And 2) Gell-Mann Amnesia: You're familiar with music, so you quickly spot the bullshit that, in reality, suffuses almost all online discussions.

I've seen middle schools integrate Aleks (https://www.aleks.com/) online learning along with regular math classes. I don't have the data to know how successful it was at bringing the lower tail of the distribution up, but it was great for kids who were smart and motivated by the material. Some were even able to complete two years' worth of curriculum and test out of their next math class.

If your operations are much heavier, then the cost of the loop condition becomes negligible. And if they're not as heavy as you thought (because the compiler's better at logic puzzles than you!), then you've wasted a whole lot more energy than those loop conditions would have.

I believe OP is implicitly saying "Most value systems [held by people you interact with on a daily basis] are equally valid". That's very different from the set of all conceivable value systems, and it's a lot easier to imagine the mechanisms by which the limited case holds (i.e.: people are pretty good at selecting valid value systems).

Because people haven't really explained the specific mechanisms:

You can think of a material as a bunch of simple harmonic oscillators, which are driven by an applied field (electric or magnetic). These oscillators have different natural frequencies, and so couple to different wavelengths. For instance, if you play a loud note next to a piano, you can see the corresponding piano string start to vibrate, but the others may not.

The interaction between these oscillators and the wave are what lead to the dielectric constant (and therefore the slowing of waves), as well as absorption (which can be thought of as the imaginary component of the dielectric constant).

In a real material, these "oscillators" are really any method of energy storage that can couple to the motion of charges (i.e. current). These include, but are not limited to: - rotations (in a gas or liquid) - vibrations (in any state) - electronic transitions - electronic movement (in the case of a metal) - displacement (in any state)

In a single molecule, many of these mechanisms would have discrete natural frequencies. But in a solid or liquid, interactions lead to a continuous band structure (especially for things like vibrations).

For water specifically, the below visible range is quickly absorbed by vibrational and rotational energy modes, while the high end of the UV range is absorbed by electronic transitions. Other materials have similar sweet spots for transmission, but at different frequencies. For instance, materials like indium tin oxide (ITO) are designed to be conductive, but not at the high frequencies of visible light, making them transparent. As another example, metals are reflective below their plasma frequency (related to the speed the 'electron sea' can move at), and transparent above (X-rays operate in this region of transparency).

If you want more information, I can recommend "Optical Properties of Solids" by Mark Fox.

The news reporting on this article has been a little misleading. First, the main goal of this is not to reduce CO2 into carbon, but simply to sequester CO2. The "carbonaceous sheets" that are produced are "graphene oxide", which is less oxidized than CO2 but still highly oxygenated. So the energy required is much less than what would be needed to reduce CO2 completely. But yeah, you won't be able to burn the end product.

No, you still don't understand, because I'm not proposing an explanation!

I even clarified: "I'm not questioning the pedagogy in the original comment, just the specific math."

>I understand what you are saying, believe me.

Do you? Almost nothing you've said has any relevance to my original comment.

I think you missed (or at least aren't building off of) the point of my comment.

I'm not questioning the pedagogy in the original comment, just the specific math. x^(1/10) takes a value of dimension [length^10] to a value of dimension [length].

Interestingly, I think you could take this in a few aesthetic directions. From a pure math perspective, this is where you can start talking about set theory, cardinality, etc. Irrational numbers are infinite sequences of digits we can only approximate. From a computer science perspective, you can talk about Newton's method, and also make the argument than an algorithm which converges to a number is a quite meaningful way to describe that number. Some would also add a caveat of 'efficiently' converging. And combining the two perspectives together, you can discuss that the set of computable numbers are of a lower cardinality than the set of reals -- aka 0% of real numbers are computable. You could also look at things from a geometrical perspective, and show how roots higher than square roots are tied to higher dimensions are are nonconstructible in the plane (this might be very hard to show!).

>The 10th root of x takes you from a measurement of an 10 dimensional object to the measurement of a 9 dimensional object.

Doesn't it take you from 10d to 1d? For instance, 10^10 is the hypervolume of a 10-cube with all side lengths = 10.

Is this true? It looks like += compiles to four bytecode instructions: two loads, an increment, and a store. It should be possible for a thread to get paused after the load but before the store, resulting in a stale read and lost write.

Some more discussion here: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1717393/is-the-operator-...

It depends what you mean by 'undefined behavior'. The GIL makes operations atomic on the bytecode instruction level. Critically, this includes loading and storing of objects, meaning that refcounting is atomic. However, this doesn't extend to most other operations, which generally need to pull an object onto the stack, manipulate it, and store it back in separate opcodes.

So with Python concurrency, you can get unpredictable behavior (such as two threads losing values when incrementing a counter), but not undefined behavior in the C sense, such as use-after-free.