wnoise

[ab] is a character class, not a parenthesized catenation. It's (a|b), not (ab). So [ab]* is {epsilon, a, b, aa, ab, ba, bb, ...}

*geometrically

Well, no, not python's fault -- clearly the distros', and they probably should be blamed. But a PEP saying python2 and python3 should invoke the correct interpreter would help motivate the distributions.

(This is isomorphic to the usual victim-blaming discussion. Fault and blame vs some ability to make a difference; it's a shame that correctly pointing out a better strategy is both used to attack victims and attacked for attacking victims in the cases when that wasn't intended.)

The first "better" approximation, while having a better "max distance" (0.019608% vs 0.027253%), has a _worse_ span between min and max (0.039216% vs 0.027253%), which probably matters for some applications.

_reliably_, as in on the vast majority of machines.

After Guantánamo, that's not a risk I'd like to take.

The only way they're not is by the Nixonian "when the President does it, that means it's not illegal" standard.

Well, anyone that does geometric algebra thinks a bit about formal quantities that mix grades.

This is the orange site, the one you're on right now.

But the instructions weren't "it's not okay to crush the competition", they were "it's not okay to talk about crushing the competition".

Or measuring torque in Watt-hours (or any other unit of energy -- joules, calories, BTUs...).

This strongly reminds me of a scene from season 3 of The Wire. A bunch of gang leaders are making plans together -- by way of a meeting trying to be run by Robert's Rules of Order. A subordinate is taking notes -- have to have minutes according to the rules. Eventually the leader notices and asks "is you takin' notes on a criminal fuckin' conspiracy?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ly82nabRRYc

> Knowing that something is definitely a breaking change because an API was removed or modified in an incompatible way will still save you time.

Iff it's a part of the API you use directly or indirectly. Sometimes you're only using part of it, and changes to the rest don't matter.

I had thought that the argument was that bundling was more using Windows (near monopoly) to prop up IE usage, rather than vice-versa. If in 2001 (with no smartphones), IE only runs on Windows, it's kind of hard to have IE have a _higher_ share of the market than Windows.

Qualified immunity only applies to civil suits.

It is explicitly trying to optimize for measuring/inculcating military performance.

Well, latitude, or longitude at the equator.

That's over three times too big though.

That suggests making the top level (document as a whole?) have an implicit dir="auto". Alternately, the default dir="auto" is overridden by any parent with an explicit dir="..." setting.

In addition to lexicographic, lexigraphic is a word, which would sound quite similar in most dialects.

Why isn't this the default?

"Just trust me bro" is not a convincing argument. What are those issues, and why is 702 needed, rather than other approaches?

> FISA 702 is key in the ability of the FBI to collect intelligence on those who seek to harm the United States.

[citation needed]

The spammers were actually spammers though.

Because the variance (or any other measure of spread) is a useful explanatory variable that is ignored and left on the floor. Switching from mean to median, while more "robust" doesn't actually capture something new, just something old slightly better.

> police by consent

It's a lovely idea, but Peelian principles are currently only paid lip-service. People are trying to drag it back to something approaching that, but it's not the current actual situation, particularly in London. (Kettling, etc.)

> are operationally independent of HM government,

> the police literally are not the government,

> do not spy for the government,

Again, in the sense of "political party currently in control of Parliament", yes. But they're literally the enforcers of the law -- and their meaning of the law. People not in Parliamentary systems have a broader, and far more useful meaning of "government" -- those governing, determining what is going to be punished and what won't. If you're actually stuck on term "government" in the partisan meaning, please give me some other term to refer to the coherent actions of the state. The bureaucracy and enforcement arms actually do govern, regardless of whether they're doing so at the behest of particular partisan guidance (though sure, that's worse in terms of being able to politically course correct). An arrest and detention whilst CPS sorts out taking to the next level is actually a punishment. Hence the quote "You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride."

> do not routinely surveil the population; their surveillance powers are limited and regulated.

Hah. Hah. Hah. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/24/business/london-police-fa... .

You could have said "sex-segregated" instead of "women-only" and not drag in the definitional arguments. Or, at least less so.

Which means they get all the downsides, and none of the upsides...

It's not assuming a surveillance mechanism, it's _describing_ one. Individual police keeping their eyes open _is_ a surveillance mechanism. Admittedly, just about the most banal one possible, but the anti-social behavior it's catching is also the most harmless. But the bad law does actually make it a problem.

> The police aren't the government

Not in the ridiculous "party controlling parliament" sense, no. But they are absolutely the enforcement arm of the state, which is more on point.