Perhaps that is inexcusable. GNU gcc version 13.2.0 (with -O2, as documented) does report a problem.

    $ cat tst.c
    int main () {
      int x[10];
      return *(x+20);
    }
    $ gcc -Wall -O2 tst.c
    tst.c: In function ‘main’:
    tst.c:3:10: warning: array subscript 20 is outside array bounds of ‘int[10]’ [-Warray-bounds=]
        3 |   return *(x+20);
          |          ^~~~~~~
    tst.c:2:7: note: at offset 80 into object ‘x’ of size 40
        2 |   int x[10];
          |       ^

These are easy mode arrays, with size and offset known at compile time. Receiving x as an int* parameter to a function, with no way to know its length automatically, would be more realistic.

I would save my data in CSV format, then use this. Save the code below as chunk.pl (remove leading spaces) and call it as "perl chunk.pl" :

    #!/usr/bin/perl -CSD -w -Mstrict -Mwarnings -MText::CSV
    
    # chunk.pl -- split csv files into chunks
    
    # Usage message and exit if needed
    if (!@ARGV || $ARGV[0] eq '-h') {
        print "Usage: $0 input_csv [chunk_size] [output_filename_format] [separator]\n";
        print "Example: $0 input.csv 500 'input-%08d.csv' ','\n";
        exit;
    }
    
    # Set command-line arguments
    my ($INFILE, $CHUNKSIZE, $FMT, $SEP) = @ARGV;
    $CHUNKSIZE //= 500;
    $FMT //= "data-%08d.csv";
    $SEP //= ",";
    
    # Initialize CSV, file handles, and counters
    my $csv = Text::CSV->new({ binary => 1, auto_diag => 1, sep_char => $SEP, eol => "\n" });
    my ($i, $f, $out) = (0, 1, undef);
    open my $in, "<:encoding(UTF-8)", $INFILE or die "Cannot open $INFILE: $!";
    
    # Main loop
    while (my $row = $csv->getline($in)) {
        if ($i % $CHUNKSIZE == 0) {
            close $out if defined $out;
            open $out, ">:encoding(UTF-8)", sprintf($FMT, $f++) or die "Cannot open output file: $!";
        }
        $csv->print($out, $row) or die "Failed to write row: $!";
        $i++;
    }
    
    # Clean up: close file handles
    close $out if defined $out;
    close $in;

I suppose R might be a better choice...

    library(readr)
    library(dplyr)
    library(purrr)
    data <- read_csv("input.csv")
    chunk_size <- 500
    chunks <- split(data, ceiling(seq_along(1:nrow(data))/chunk_size))
    iwalk(chunks, ~write_csv(.x, sprintf("data-%04d.csv", .y)))

Can you post your tmux config that mocks GNU Screen?

Here is mine : https://pastebin.com/ZVWYcpyU , but a lot of GNU Screen muscle memory fails for various reasons.

The main reasons I'm trying to switch are: better scrollback support, and better mouse support (both for tmux itself and for pass-through to terminal applications). Having used GNU Screen for 32 years, it's difficult for me to even think about what keys I'm hitting, it's below the level of conscious recognition at this point.

Here is mine - it's pretty short. I think it reflects what I use and don't use, so I'm not sure it's useful to you!

    # remap prefix from 'C-b' to 'C-a'
    unbind C-b
    set-option -g prefix C-a
    bind-key a send-prefix
    bind-key C-n next-window
    bind-key C-p previous-window
    
    unbind C-a
    bind C-a last-window
    
    unbind A
    # Default C-a ,
    bind A command-prompt -I "#W" "rename-window '%%'"
    unbind k
    bind k confirm-before "kill-window"
    
    bind Escape copy-mode
    
    # start counting from 1
    set -g base-index 1
    setw -g pane-base-index 1
    
    # vi keys scrollback
    setw -g mode-keys vi
    
    # Style
    set -g status-bg black
    set -g status-fg white
    
    # Make current tab visible
    setw -g window-status-current-format "#[reverse]*#I:#W*"

The site doesn't scroll at all on Firefox(X11) with ublock and umatrix, even when the non-tracking sites are enabled. In Brave browser it somewhat works in a janky way, but given that the site apparently brings a 24-core threadripper with 128GB RAM to it's knees, it certainly doesn't inspire confidence in the product, which otherwise looks pretty good.

Steve Mann resolved this notational dilemma by using the term "crown", as in binary = crown 1, octal = crown 7, decimal = crown 9, hex = crown F, and so on.

Stanfield's logic is simply wrong.

1. Spermidine found to increase lifespan and fertility in mice.

2. Spermidine levels not found to increase in blood or certain tissues when fed to mice.

3. Therefore, 1 is wrong.

Finding 2 in no way disproves 1. Facts which could be consistent with both 1 and 2 being true:

- spermidine metabolites are responsible for benefits

- while spermidine levels are maintained, excess spermidine is used beneficially

- experimenters in 2 simply haven't looked in the right tissues

And so on. TFA says there were observed phenotypic improvements (follicular health, oocyte number and quality), which categorically trump 2's failure to observe increase in spermidine levels. And none of this says anything directly about spermidine's effects in humans

I’ve watched a lot of Stanfield’s videos. Over time I came to realize that his whole image is built on being “the critic” and tempering optimism around these treatments. Except for his own personal research, which he’d like you to help fund :)

At the end of the day, “the critic” is a valuable job. Someone has to do it. Not sure it is really helping progress the industry though. I think it would be better for him to leave this to the lawyers tho.

On-screen keyboards all seem to fail, with "onboard" crashing when you try to type, most others not showing up at all.

A lot of exposés of LLM weaknesses involve abusing the ambiguities of English with questions that are impossible for humans to give a satisfactory answer to, because they can be read in multiple ways.

Part of my bullishness on LLMs is that a lot of the criticism is so bad, and if they weren't the real deal there would be more low hanging fruit to attack them on. Cryptocurrency was having real problems from the first moment people realized how much data they would have to download to initialize a node.

> A lot of exposés of LLM weaknesses involve abusing the ambiguities of English with questions that are impossible for humans to give a satisfactory answer to

There's a general unstated assumption that a truly intelligent entity wouldn't make mistakes, which is sort of contradicted by, you know, the existence of humanity. I think making (certain kinds of) mistakes is a _sign_ of intelligence, rather than a sign that it's not.

Yes, you're misreading it. "the president" is not a label that applies solely to JFK, or one that applies at all to JFK in the context "when JFK was born".

If someone gave me the question "who was the president when JFK was born?", the answer is clearly not JFK, so it isn't correct to infer that JFK is the president whose height, party affiliation or essay writing skill is being asked about "when JFK was born".

If someone gave me the headline "was the president strong at writing essays when JFK was a high school freshman?" I would assume that either they were trying to trick me or that they were a non-native English speaker or computer program that didn't understand how English syntax or the concept of presidency worked. If you flip it to "was JFK strong at writing essays when the president was a high school freshman" then yes, I'd consider both to refer to JFK because "the president"can't be identified as anyone else, but I'd also consider it to be bad writing by someone cargo-culting the idea of elegant variation...

> If someone gave me the headline "was the president strong at writing essays when JFK was a high school freshman?" I would assume that either they were trying to trick me or that they were a non-native English speaker or computer program that didn't understand how English syntax or the concept of presidency worked.

I don't think it's as complicated as all that. Most English speakers wouldn't refer to a single person by two distinct proper nouns in a sentence like this, so I'd assume they were referring to two separate people. If they had meant to refer to the same person, they would have used a pronoun. I'd probably guess they were either talking about the President at the time at which JFK was a freshman (Hoover, I think) or the current President at the time the question was being asked.

On the other hand, if the question was "Was President Kennedy strong at writing essays when JFK was a high school freshman?" then yeah, I'd agree with your take. In this case, it's clear that the writer is intentionally referring to the same person but using two different proper nouns, which is a very odd phrasing.

> Most English speakers wouldn't refer to a single person by two distinct proper nouns in a sentence like this, so I'd assume they were referring to two separate people.

I agree with this (though elegant and inelegant variation is a thing). But nor would any English speaker be likely to ask about the skill of an anonymous holder of a position with reference to an ambiguous date range associated with a time in which a later holder of that position would be extensively practicing that skill, which is why I classed it the sort of sentence with no natural meaning you'd only conceive in order to be deliberately ambiguous (or because you don't understand how to write English properly).

The original sentence isn't ideally constructed, but at least the president when JFK was born is a natural and easily identified sentence object, and it would be odd to ignore that in favour of an alternative interpretation that also involved interpreting "how tall" as being more likely to refer to the [probably-not-recorded-for-posterity] length of a newborn infant (who wouldn't be idiomatically referred to as "tall" or the president in the context of his birth) than the height of a person who was president in the relevant time period

> "who was the president when JFK was born?", the answer is clearly not JFK

Yes, you can deduce that, since the question is nonsensical (trivial) if "the president" refers to JFK in that context.

> If you flip it to "was JFK strong at writing essays when the president was a high school freshman"

This is a perfect illustration of why the original sentence can be read as referring to JFK, since in speech it is common to have ill-defined references that are later clarified, and there's no formal rule that enforces that all terms must be defined before use.

> This is a perfect illustration of why the original sentence can be read as referring to JFK, since in speech it is common to have ill-defined references that are later clarified, and there's no formal rule that enforces that all terms must be defined before use.

References that are later clarified is exactly how we arrive at "the president when JFK was born" as defining Woodrow Wilson as the object of the sentence (and it makes much more sense to ask about how tall President Wilson was in the context of 1917 than to wonder how "tall" baby "president" JFK was in 1917).

Whereas "when the president was a high school freshman" can't be used to identify anybody else [unless there is a time period in which a high school freshman was the president!], even if the sentence hadn't already made it clear that JFK was the object of the sentence. But it's still an example of bad writing.

Even when there's no ambiguity, we don't do sentences like "The SpaceX founder was about 18 inches tall when Elon Musk was born" which is basically how you're implying the president question - which has a much more reasonable alternative interpretation - could be answered...

It is possible to write a truly ambiguous sentence in English; nobody is arguing otherwise. But whilst the original sentence might make you think a bit, it's not naturally interpreted as being equally/more likely to be a question about the not-tall not-president in the context of the time period instead of the person with height and presidency in the context of the time period, unless you're being obtuse or lack fluency in the language.

I wrote:

> "Was the president strong at writing essays when JFK was a high school freshman? Read this essay to find out!"

You write:

> "when the president was a high school freshman"

These are very different circumstances, of course.

If the original sentence had "reigning" before the word "president", then I would absolutely agree with the given interpretation.

I've noticed that Americans call ex-presidents "president", and ex-governors "governor", so that merely adds to the confusion. English is not my native language, and I'm not American, so perhaps I fall into the "lack fluency" category. Conferring with other native speakers nearby, every American immediately reads it as intended, whereas Brits and Canadians do not.

I conclude that the original sentence is poorly written, and that I misread it.

The fact JFK is being referred to as JFK in the same sentence as 'the president' is being referred to - rather than 'how tall was the president when he was born' or 'how tall was JFK when he was born' indicates they refer to different people. Therefore, 'the president' would most likely refer to whomever was the US president when JFK was born, though if the article referred to the president of some other organization before referring to JFK itt might not be the case.

As an non native english speaker i read:

> How tall was the president when JFK was born?

as, How tall was the "reigning" president, (which in the year 1917, Kennedys birth year, was Thomas Woodrow Wilson) on the day that JFK was born."

Let's talk about Biden, then. How tall was the president when he was born?

Ha! Perfect example!

It is ambiguous. Very ambiguous. You could reasonably ask: president of what?

Practically speaking, unverifiable and unfalsifiable.

They say once in 7.5 million years, so why don’t they show the previous 7.5 million years?

If that's not possible, and we only have 1989-2023 data, then the 7.5 million year comment is particularly ridiculous, as is making any generalization with data for only 0.0001% of the time span in question.

The timespan is just a more easily digested framing of the odds. It's meant to be easier for a layman to understand, and doesn't actually have anything to do with what things would look like over 7.5 million years. That would take models with an impossible level of detail about planet scale dynamics.