["div",
"The ", ["a", {"href": "https://www.json.org/"}, "JSON format"],
" was invented by ", ["em", "Douglas Crockford"], "."]
1,120 karma · joined December 30, 2014
It's easy to make a concise representation of DOM trees as JSON: http://m1el.github.io/jsonht.htm
I find it really sad that people don't know or consider s-expressions to represent trees.
(Department {:name "Scranton Branch"}
(Employee {:name "Michael Scott" :title "Regional Manager"}
(Department {:name "Sales"}
(Employee {:name "Dwight Schrute" :title "Ass. Regional Mgr"})
(Employee {:name "Jim Halpert" :title="Head of Sales"}
(Employee {:name "Andy Bernard" :title="Sales Rep"})
(Employee {:name "Phyllis Lapin" :title="Sales Rep"})))
(Employee {:name "Pam Beesly" :title "Office Administrator")))One of the implementations of this pattern is dtrace (http://dtrace.org/blogs/about/)
Are there any plans to have something similar to this? I.e. dynamically attach to a running process with tracing capabilities, and inspect/aggregate/filter/analyze live events?
All full nodes on that blockchain are going to be owned by FaceBook. FB will be able to see all transactions and take money from people they don't like.
> Silicon dioxide melting point: 1710 °C
No complex chemistry can survive these temperatures. SiO2 is only soluble in HCl and HF, which are very reactive, so no solubility either.
> Also I don't see why you couldn't have an organism that "breathes" solid material.
All of known biological chemistry relies on some sort of solubility for reagents. I don't think there's any known organism that can get rid of solid waste from the entire volume of the organism.
1) using complex numbers: A unit complex number (having its length/magnitude/absolute value equal to 1) form a circle, this circle corresponds to all 2d rotations The result of multiplying two unit complex number corresponds to combination of two 2d rotations. You can apply the rotation to a point in complex plane by multiplying that point by unit complex number that corresponds to a rotation
Quaternions are the same as complex numbers, but instead of having one imaginary part they have three, and they have slightly different rules of multiplication. Quaternions of magnitude one form a 4d sphere, this 4d sphere corresponds to all 3d rotations. The result of multiplying two unit quaternions corresponds to combination of two 3d rotations. You can apply the rotation to a point in 3d space using slightly different multiplication.
2) not using complex numbers Ine of the ways to represent 3d rotations is to choose an axis direction and and angle of rotation (surprisingly, this can represent all 3d rotations) A unit quaternion representing this rotation will have its three imaginary parts ijk equal to sin(angle)*(axis direction vector), and the real part equal to cos(angle) There are funny rules about how you can multiply these quaternions, and this multiplication will produce a quaternion that represents the rotation.
This has nothing to do with leap seconds. Leap seconds are the worst mechanism in keeping time, there's not a single advantage to having leap seconds.
> A day is defined as the rotation of the earth around its axis.
And we can now measure time with precision high enough that tying to Earth's rotation is not acceptable. We can still use timezones to fix the shift.
> Changing any of these will make the summer drift into the winter, or the night into the day, or whatever.
Yeah, and it will take a millennium for Earth rotation to shift enough for people to notice it. On the other hand, you'd have no problem with summer/winter time I presume?
> I have a friend who’s an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don’t agree with very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say “look how beautiful it is,” and I’ll agree. Then he says “I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing,” and I think that he’s kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe. Although I may not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is … I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it’s not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there’s also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don’t understand how it subtracts.
I think that even if science can reduce processes to simple understandable components, this doesn't take away from everyday life.
The fact that a book consists of characters doesn't make it worse.
The fact that you're simply a specific configuration of atoms* doesn't devalue you as a human being.
* or evolution of this configuration in time, but that's a story for another time
The fact that your neural system is entirely responsible for your thinking (conscious and unconscious) doesn't make your mind less fascinating.
From my perspective: there's now a lot of useless tabs on the top (commits/branches/releases), the repository description will either take extra space OR will disappear and the tabs are going to shift.
- Getting rid of icons: OK
- Moving description over tabs: bad
- Shuffling tabs around: bad
- Different info instead of code details: meh
- Vanity counters: OK
- Changed style/color-scheme: bike-shedding / meh
Opinionated summary: hit and miss.
Last three times I tried to install bcc/bpftrace on my Debian boxes, I failed to do so. The situation has not changed for over a year. I'm not the only one:
https://github.com/iovisor/bcc/issues/678
Inigo Quilez has in-depth explanations and plenty of examples for these: https://iquilezles.org/www/articles/distfunctions/distfuncti...
No, this statement means that Kilogram will give up its place as a fundamental unit to Planck constant. Earlier, Kilogram was used as a fundamental unit, defined by a physical object. Not anymore.
The kilogram will be defined by Planck constant. Namely, m = E/c^2 = hf/c^2.
> How can they measeure it with 0 error?
We can't, all measurements have errors. But we can measure things better than a physical object, which has changed with time. So we only have to measure Plank constant with precision higher than variation of physical object's mass for the purpose of replacing the definition of mass.
I agree that both CoC and GPL are political.
Developers need to understand something: CoC a political document written by someone opposing one of important principles of free software, meritocracy. https://postmeritocracy.org/
Now here's a big difference: linux was developed under GPL from the very beginning. If you didn't like the politics behind GPL, you didn't contribute. Now, there are people who try to push their politics everywhere, because "everything is political", even math. Why should you accept their politics? Why should linux change its politics? Why must CoC be accepted? Why should developers accept the politics of CoC, after making contributions under promises of GPL?
One of the interesting ways is adding is adding noise generated by inverse Fourier transforms.
http://repro.grf.unizg.hr/media/Ante/Radovi/033008_1_FINAL.p...
https://i.imgur.com/bSdusjH.png
It's not about "two-party system", it's about the "natural" distribution of software distribution models.