373 karma · joined September 3, 2014
That's how I think it should work. Honest labeling, and letting consumers decide.
It refers to making sure all children (and grandchildren etc) inherit a trait, even though the trait isn't necessarily evolutionary beneficial for the organism. The way this is implemented in this case by having a gene that codes for proteins that insert the gene in chromosomes that do not already have it.
This means that by just releasing a few specimen with the gene drive, the entire population can be gene modified in not-that-many generations. A year may be sufficient for insects, since their generations are so short.
That's because we have won a partial victory. They would very much like a total, fool-proof access limit.
That was for primitive types, it may well be different for types where comparison is more costly. And of course if you need protection from algorithmic complexity attacks, then you will need to take that into account.
1. if there is no free will then choices (and bad choices in particular) have to come from somewhere else.
2. that something is either unfortunate genetics or an unfortunate environment.
3. whichever of these is at fault should be fixed.
The former is "read-only" (can read elements which are all guaranteed to be shapes). The latter is "write-only" (we can add circles to it, but not all elements in it are guaranteed to be circles).
I use quotes because it is not strictly true, but any writes or reads will be of the sort that they don't cause type problems. For instance you can call clear() on a ArrayList<? extends Shape>
I think you should remove the bubble sort snippet. A newbie may use it verbatim without realizing there are better algorithms.
It may be good to give an example of RAII that protects a resource other than memory, to plant the idea of wider applicability in your reader's head.
That said though I really dislike the atmosphere created by frequent shill accusations. It seems to rapidly create an echo chamber, where minority opinions are dismissed.
The original table's border is removed, and every tr is styled to look like a table by giving it a border. tds are turned into rows by setting display:block. The td rows are given row headers using pseudo elements, which pulls their content from an attribute on the corresponding td.
x is the rank of the employee. Let N be number of employees. We can generate a new observation from the model by generating an x' uniformly between 1 and N, and inserting in the formula for y. Then p'=x'/N is a number between 1/N and 1, or if we round, between 0 and 1.
The generated observation will be distributed according to (convince yourself by looking at the submission's graph)
P(y' > y) = p, where y=-kln(Np) + m
or solving for p, where p = exp(m-y) / N. So
P(y' < y) = 1 - exp(m-y) / N
This is the exponential distribution.
The "no-subtleisms" rule is designed to hinder the spread of information about the differences of different groups. "It's so easy my grandmother could do it" is supposedly bad because it reminds us that there is a group, old people, who are not like us. Focusing on differences can create a hostile us-vs-them climate. But it can also remind us that there is a world outside of SV. That there are other people with other abilities and skills, with other problems that need solving. In this particular case it can remind us that if we want to target old people with a product, to make sure it is easy to use.
The best outcome for HN is if we as a community converge on the right answer.
Now if someone brings argues poorly, but for the right answer, and then someone comes along and crushes the poor argument. Then the counter-arguer "wins" and succeeds in humiliating the "opponent". But the the wrong answer wins, and that is bad for the community
If on the other hand, someone comes along, reinforces the poor argument, and then brings a weak counterargument, then that gives the right answer a better chance of winning.