robryk

> most of the probabilistic methods (specifically those that use a logarithmic amount of space)

These are by far not most, nor most of the practically useful ones. Directed graph reachability, given an adjacency list as input, is NL-hard.

Why do you think that this other kind of accountability (which reminds me of the way captain's or commander's responsibility is often described) is incompatible with what the article describes? Due to the focus on necessity of manual testing?

Would automated tests that produce a transcript of what they've done allow perusing that transcript to substitute for manual testing?

Even if the situations are noticed and seen fully, does it cause the schools to not punish the victim? The stories I've heard about zero tolerance policies were that _even when the situation was fully obvious_, victims got punished because they took part in an altercation.

Why? You just need to choose electronics that doesn't use micro mechanical designs that would be damaged by helium. (Or are you pointing at some other reason?)

The larger issue for most quantum key exchange setups is the transition from classical to quantum: you want not to accidentally generate two unentangled photons in the same secret polarization.

I think you are on the right track (sorry, I did not verify all the individual statements). If you weren't already aware of them, you might wish to learn what normal subgroups are, see how you can have a subgroup that's not a normal subgroup (and probably see what cosets are at the same time), and see how does dividing a group by a normal subgroup (to yield a group) work and what properties it has.

The reason why it's not so simple is that various operations on the cube do not commute (whereas rotations of different wheels on a combination lock do).

Is it still not a free action if it replaced an ad?

Is it also impractical for treating potable water supplies, or for treating wastewater? (You mentioned only _bottled_ water companies.)

I don't see why one has to create the actor-actor relation table. I would rather search for shortest paths in the bipartite graph where nodes are movies and actors, and divide the results by 2.

I wonder if they intend to measure pressure and display altitude difference (or at least its sign) at some point. (That could be very helpful when skiing.)

You can always exfiltrate by inserting stuff into the page's DOM that will do the exfil from the page's context.

Why isn't this the model case for small claims courts?

As with race conditions, making things faster doesn't change things but only exposes preexisting problems. The preexisting problem I see here is sloppy definition of existence for the message: if you can see the message on a burning piece of paper, it should be considered to still exist (just as a message being sent with smoke signals does not disappear the moment it's committed to smoke).

E: The obvious way to fix this is to stop talking about messages existing/not existing, but talk in terms of messages being stored in X (or having been deleted from X), for some value of X.

HOAs require more than (or a very specific extension of) freedom of association to exist: they require an ability to bind any future owners of a piece of land to join the HOA (regardless of how they acquired that land: via sale, inheritance, bankruptcy, ...). For property that's not real estate that's usually not possible (see e.g. inability of companies to provide binding promises on how the data they have are used after they go bankrupt). Given that this ability applies very inconsistently across types of property, it doesn't seem like an essential part of freedom of association.

To steelman the GP's POV: there are other parts of solutions to problems where similar levels of rigour are required and cannot be filled in by using a preexisting library (state machines for distributed business logic come to mind as an example). Eliminating the need for that here doesn't help that much in general, and might even make things worse, because it gives people less experience with tasks demanding rigour before they tackle ones that are both subtler and harder.

I have a power meter that sits in front of my kettle (that I also use as a teapot) that notifies me when the tea has finished brewing (i.e. when it finished boiling + a fixed delay).

I don't see why subjective morals cannot be realistically followed. Do you mean that it will mean sufficiently different things for different people that they any promise of this shape will not communicate much to strangers, or something else?

> The only variable inside its own table is yolAbejyiejuvnup=Evjtgvsh5okmkAvj, which in this context serves as a kill switch.

This seems false? The trie contained also strings like `WAYLAND_DISPLAY=`, so IIUC the backdoor would remain dormant if someone tried to run sshd from something that looks like an interactive session.

I don't understand what happens when the sensor is bent in more than one location.

At the beginning you mention a ToF sensor, which made me think that you're looking at reflections from the bends and measuring distance to them, but this seems not to be the case. ISTM that if you bend the sensor in two places, you'll simply get the sum of the logattenuations from both. If we assume that the "strength" of the bend continuously changes attenuation, ISTM that you need as many strands as there are gap locations to be able to disambiguate between any two sets of bends.

Am I misreading something or is this intended to operate in cases where we know only one bend is present?

Ssh does client authentication after handshake. The server is required to sign the handshake result with its private key, so you won't get past handshake if you are a server that claims to have a public key that you don't know the private key for.

E: see RFC 4253, sections 8 and 10, and RFC 4252 for corroboration

Or just a very quick change?

My best example of that was a test that was asserting that a monitoring metric changes in some way with a comment expressing doubt whether the asserted values are correct (but whoever wrote it still wrote the test that enshrined the behaviour that they themselves doubted).

This is my experience, unless I try to make the contract of the thing simple to test via property testing. Then, writing tests often becomes basically an exercise in writing down the contract in a succinct way.

Sadly, this is a rare approach, so if you cooperate with others it's hard to use it.

Both lift and drag are aerodynamic forces, so your approximation causes one to conclude that one need to simply spin everything faster. (And then we run into problems with transonic blades.)

> It's roughly equivalent to flying at 40,000 ft on Earth with an electric helicopter. The world record for highest helicopter ever flown is 42,500 ft on Earth.

The record was established in a jet-engined helicopter, whose service ceiling is largely a function of engine power at appropriate altitudes (e.g. it varies a lot with temperature and humidity).

Something that has gps, can display a bit of a map, and is waterproof is somewhere between your two leagues and I think it's genuinely useful.

Helicopters on Earth use internal combustion engines (often in particular jet engines) to provide power. Those engines' performance depends on the air pressure (and temperature and humidity).

I'm surprised that they aren't also available in some subdomain of dns.toys (so that they would resolve without using a special name server).

That would be at least everyone knowingly involved with who is a professional engineer.