wnoise

It's "rules of thumb for a working physicist".

Mike and Ike is almost always my standard recommendation.

They're often terrible at knowing what helps or hurts values though.

The point is limit the damage that distrusting badly-behaved CAs do. Right now there's a lot of blast damage as anyone using them suddenly has their stuff break. If multiple signatures were common, then a given CA could be distrusted without hurting as many others, so it would actually be a viable threat to keep them in line.

Yeah, that's one of the complications. It would have to be ignored in processing, or multiple variants be presented at once (preferred).

Certificates are not the same as the public key; multiple certs sharing the same key is essentially the way around this. It's not as elegant as identical signing of the same cert, but it could work.

That's an interesting wrinkle I was not aware of.

It is a shame that you cannot have a cert signed by multiple CAs.

(The format seems like it would allow it, but nothing supports it, and in practice CAs demand the ability to actually modify some fields, and then sign that.)

It's flagged because lots of "trusted" users flagged it.

Why did they do that? Some might have an aversion to politics in general. That has long been a strong strain here, with people seeing it as diluting the tech focus.

But for a lot, it's clearly more sinister. There has been a lot of partiality in tech recently to plainly fascist and other ultra-right-wing ideas, especially among the executives and capital. They like it, and want it to win, everywhere, and will reflexively do what they can to help it, including burying bad coverage.

You're confused that I accurately described the origins and meaning of the term "remigration"? It is not merely closing borders and deporting immigrants without legal permission to be there. Calling for remigration absolutely is calling for ethnic cleansing. They're not shy about it, except when trying to convince non-racists that it's actually completely reasonable, and will only happen to criminals, the "worst of the worst", and those who haven't assimilated.

The rest is a large pile of missing the point, and bringing up things I did not say. I did not say any one was doing it. I said people were calling for it.

For the leaders of the Örebro Party in particular, Wikipedia suffices: > In a podcast segment about second generation immigrants involved in organised crime Allard stated "They will also be forced to leave, even if they are born in Sweden, because they have no natural connection to Sweden. They are not Swedish. They have not been interested in becoming Swedish."

(I am aware that Sweden is _Jus sanguinis_; it is entirely possible that second generation immigrants don't have citizenship; that merely makes it legal. And he does not explicitly make even that limiting argument.)

Note too that ethnicity is narrower than skin color; the lumping together of all European-extraction is a contingent feature of history, and is weaker than you might think. Kicking out non-Swedes would ethnic-cleansing, and would be even if the people being kicked out were white.

Nor does also deporting people for non-ethnic reasons make the rest of a remigration program not ethnic-cleansing. It's not the goal, but it's no big loss to these nationalists, because they're authoritarian race-collectivists willing to cause harm to get those people out.

Every country does deportation. "Remigration" is a neo-Nazi term that is explicitly a call for removal not by immigration status, but by ethnicity.

We know what ethnic-cleansing looks like, and the horrors it both requires to do and eventually causes.

"Government goodies, but just for people like us" is very much compatible with far-right governance.

How is the clojure program given not that?

Don't forget pizza delivery.

Saying your quoted words is a request for someone to read and respond; it's still pressure and a burden.

This is significant semantic drift from the original meaning of yak shaving.

Building your own is great, but it's not yak shaving.

Yak shaving is fixing fractal brokenness that you notice while punching through layers of existing systems to finally fix the root cause of the original thing you cared about.

See, e.g. Hal replacing a lightbulb: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbSehcT19u0

More commonly, edit them.

General Relativity was published in 1916.

You don't want the people that run the engineering firms, no. You might want some of the people that work there.

I knew that about the feds, but does it also apply to the states?

Even though you would think that'd be a taking for public use.

Because those are far more general than what he is asking for, and what he is asking for will usually not be seen as covered by your generalization.

To be clear, "Apple" is a group, not a unified thing with one will.

That doesn't mean that the engineeers will necessarily ship something more flexible than what the PMs asked for. Often not.

But sometimes they will.

The commissioners?

That's for Charlie Kirk et al, not Jesse Singal.

They didn't. Pure lambda calculus would have been "a function that when applied to a number encoded as a function, extracts that value".

They did it essentially as a linked list, C-strings, or UTF-8 characters: "current data, and is there more (next pointer, non-null byte, continuation bit set)?" They also noted that it could have this semantics without necessarily following this implementation encoding, though that seems like a dodge to me; length-prefixed array is a perfectly fine primitive to have, and shouldn't be inferred from something that can map to it.

They are quite related, but the Fourier transform seems far more beautiful and generalizable: you can do 2-d, 3-d, etc transforms, and they automatically respect the symmetries of the problems (e.g. rotating the coordinate system rotates the Fourier transform in a corresponding way; frequencies and wave-vectors have meanings). This fully extends to any "nice" abelian group satisfying minor technical conditions, where the mapping is to it's dual group. It even mostly extends to non-abelian groups (representation theory), though some nice properties are lost.

The Laplace transform shines in having nicer convergence properties in some specific cases. While those are extremely valuable for control problems, it really is a much more specialized theory, not nearly as widely applicable. (You can come up with n-d versions. The obvious thing to do is copy the Fourier case and iteratively Laplace transform on each coordinate; the special role of one direction either directly in the unilateral case, or indirectly via growth properties in the bilateral case make it hard to argue that this can develop to something more unifying; the domain isn't preserved under rotation.)

No, humans can't inspect their own weights either -- but we're not LLMs and don't store all knowledge implicitly as probabilities to output next token. It's pretty clear that we also store some knowledge explicitly, and can include context of that knowledge.

(To be sure, there are plenty of cases where it is clear that we are only making up stories after the fact about why we said or did something. But sometimes we do actually know and that reconstruction is accurate.)

Topics? No, I don't agree with that. Almost any subject can be treated in an age-appropriate manner.

A 7-year-old doesn't need to read about nearly any topic. Excluding any mention of all of those subjects from the school library leaves a nearly empty library.

For that heavy-handed of a response to be _legally mandated_ requires not just "no need", but some strong evidence of harm. Mentions of sex, oral or otherwise, doesn't actually have much evidence of harm. Certain treatments of it might -- but that's not what the law targets, nor can effectively target. It covers mere mentions or small bits of explicit language, even where that is necessary for the effect of the book. These can and do make parents profoundly uncomfortable, though, and that is worth taking into consideration.

I would think that the usual approach of professional librarians curating based on their own judgement, subject to some oversight from the local school boards to take into account these valid discomforts, but largely baseless fears would be a far better approach.

And what dynamic libraries s it linked to? And what other data are they pulling in?

The idea of pathological RAM access patterns is as ridiculous as the idea of pathological division of floating point numbers. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_FDIV_bug ). The spec of RAM is to be able to store anything in any order, reliably. They failed the spec.

They cannot. It requires a simple majority in the House followed by a 2/3 majority in the Senate. This is basically impossible to achieve.