How would you prevent this causing increase in interest rates on student loans?
863 karma · joined July 24, 2009
B. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Afforda...: "The federal government paid 100% of the cost of Medicaid eligibility expansion in participating states in 2014, 2015, and 2016; and will pay 95% in 2017, 94% in 2018, 93% in 2019, and 90% in 2020 and all subsequent years."
What you just described is "average" not "amortized". Amortized does not mean "across a set of representative inputs", it means "through time, even if given the same input repeatedly".
Amortized complexity is tricky sometimes. For instance, in a data structure storing a binary integer and allowing an increment operation, the number of bits flipped is amortized O(1). The same is true if the only operation is decrement. Neither is true if you have both increment and decrement!
Another example: you can change the accounting to make things amortized lower cost. For instance, a heap (aka implicit priority queue) can be said to have O(1) deleteMin by simply ascribing an extra O(log n) cost to each insert. In fact, you can say deleteMin has O(0) cost! An example of this being done in the literature is https://arxiv.org/abs/0903.4130, "Pairing Heaps with Costless Meld", by Amr Elmasry.
Are you sure about this? Are you an attorney? I am not.
I ask because it was my impression that, more than each individual having a right to free speech, each individual has a right to be free from a certain set of governmental restrictions or punishments for their speech, and that this is also true of the non-governmental-employer-employee relationship, but the set is smaller.
For instance, it was my impression that:
(A) People who are not governmental employees have the right to be free from the government restricting them from criticizing Congress in most locations at most times (and have the right to be free from the government punishing them for this criticism)
(B) Governmental employees have fewer rights that (A) in certain respects related to their employment
(C) People who are non-governmental employees can generally be fired for their speech, though not for certain speech, like stating that she is pregnant or whistleblowing to the federal government (under some circumstances)
But I am not a lawyer.
This makes even the MLE procedure partially incorrect in the first case, since it is the maximum likelihood estimation of a set of hashes in which the register discussed above did not overflow.
Is that about right?
Yes, and AVX512, with two caveats:
1. This is processor-dependent. Different processors have different ratios of instruction latency.
2. Sometimes a related instruction is faster than the instruction specifically for that purpose. For instance, on the glibc on my machine, memcmp and strncmp are NOT implemented using the sse4.2 instructions for string comparison, but instead use ptest and pcmpeq, respectively, because it is faster to do so. The same phenomenon could be true of gathers as well.
http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~orestis/vbf.c
It has very high throughput for L2-resident filters, as long as most queries return "false" and you can use a bulk API. It was, IIRC, about 4x faster than a hand-made "horizontal" SIMD Bloom filter, and 20x faster than cuckoo filters.
By "horizontal" SIMD, I am using the language of a follow-up paper by the same team at Columbia, "Rethinking SIMD Vectorization for In-Memory Databases", http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~orestis/sigmod15.pdf, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~orestis/sigmod15source.zip. In that paper, they call "vertical" SIMD for hash-based containers "process[ing] a different input key per vector lane". "Horizontal" SIMD is putting the same key in each lane.
I suspect the results in this paper could be improved with more modern gather techniques on newer x86-64 processors.
Were the authors that were listed on these papers CIA employees with a fake cover job, or just completely made-up names?
UBSan is a set of run-time checks and has low compile-time cost. The example function you give, f, would be complained about if you passed it INT_MAX, but that complaint would come at run-time and it would never be triggered if you never passed it INT_MAX.
I also agree that it is not possible to enforce non-INT_MAX limits, like x < 10.
1. Undefined behavior sanitizer, which checks integer overflows at run-time, like INT_MAX + 1. Can optionally check other invariants; see https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Instrumentation-Options.h... and https://clang.llvm.org/docs/UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer.html.
2. Abstract interpretation - using a lot of constraint solver cycles and enough math to choke a dinosaur, you can check some integer bounds at compile time "relationally", like knowing that x < y. See, for example, "Pentagons: A Weakly Relational Abstract Domain for the Efficient Validation of Array Accesses": https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/pentago.... I'm not sure, but that code might be available in https://github.com/Microsoft/CodeContracts.
For example, Steven Hayne claimed that he could tell from a bullet wound that more than one person was holding the gun. John Preston claimed his dog could track a human scent on a street after a hurricane. Annie Dookhan and Pamela Fish falsified drug and DNA tests.
I don't think we're going to be able to settle this argument here, so I'll just leave it at that.
To me, false allegations against individuals are more serious than false allegations against organizations for a few reasons. First, I care about the well-being of organizations only to the extent they positively impact the well-being of humans (or, to a lesser extent, animals). Second, a single false allegation against an individual human seems to be able to have a much more damaging effect than one against an organization.
I suspect this is a well-worn topic and that I would consider many of the other objections to corporate personhood to be "meaningful distinctions".
"about you"? Her article did not name or provide identifying information about any individual employee of Centrelink.
OK, but Anwar al-Awlaki was not on an active battlefield when he was assassinated.
I don't think I understand exactly what part of my post you disagree with. Did I misstate the facts?
I understand that you think Holder may be justified in saying that the Constitution did not prevent the assassination. I am not a lawyer, and I cannot argue that I can tell you what was meant by those words originally, or how lawyers or judges would interpret those words today.
I can say that in my view, a plain, humane, and just reading of those words does not include a panel, meeting in secret, without any representative of the accused present to defend him, deciding upon his execution. Further, I will say that I think it speaks to Holder's view of the authority granted to large institutions that he was willing to stand by this as justice.
Clearly, the stakes are much lower, here, unless Uber is also running a drone assassination campaign. But we have seen Holder before in a situation where his employer holds immense power over a departed stakeholder who has become a vocal critic, and we have seen his unwillingness to challenge power in that circumstance.
I hope I am wrong, and I hope that Holder can make a meaningful difference in preventing Uber from continuing to treat its employees so poorly as it did in the blog post in question.