This is so blatantly wrong. On macs it became a little bit hrder very recently (you need to tick a checkmark in the system setting to allow untrusted program running) otherwise you just need to run the program once via right-click.
On most user-friendly linux distros you can just run installer of any program.
It’s a lot harder than that now in macOS - now you have to individually approve each new unsigned binary through the system preferences security panel.
I believe they only standardized the two's-complement representation (so casts to unsigned have a more specific behavior, for example) but they did not make overflow defined.
Yeah, signed integer overflow is as UB as ever. I've heard the primary reason for it is to avoid the possibility of wraparound on 'for (int i = 0; i < length; i++)' loops where the 'length' is bigger than an int. (Of course, the more straightforward option would be to use proper types like size_t for all your indices, but it's a classic tradition to use nothing but char and int, and people judge compilers based on existing code.)
What it means is that since i as the variable is monotonically increasing, an array indexing operation that is in the loop body can be replaced with an incrementing pointer instead, which eliminates quite a lot of code. An example here: https://pvs-studio.com/en/blog/posts/cpp/0374/
UB can be converted to ID by using -fwrapv (to "standardize" the wrapround, which does not necessarily help if the overflow was not intentional) or -ftrapv (generate an exception).
While it might be ok to use colloquially the term, "Fenwick trees" since it became a common name, calling them "a Fenwick's work" and not mentioning Ryabko is a clear misattribution.
The proof that e is irrational is very simple, follows from its famous expansion as a sum of inverse factorials. Non-algebraicity is a can of worms though.
You can actually prove e is transcendental in a way fairly similar to the submitted proof that pi is irrational, just with a lot more fiddling. There's a proof at the end of chapter 2 of Niven's "Irrational Numbers", which is available on the Internet Archive. I'll summarize below.
Assume e is algebraic of degree m, with A_m e^m + A_(m-1) e^(m-1) + ... + A_0 = 0 where the A_i's are integers, A_0 != 0.
1. Define a polynomial f(x) = x^(p-1) (x-1)^p (x-2)^p ... (x-m)^p / (p-1)! where p is an odd prime to be specified later.
2. Then define F(x) as f(x) + f'(x) + f^(2)(x) + ... + f^(mp+p-1)(x).
3. Show that for 0 < x < m we have |f(x)| < m^(mp+p-1)/(p-1)!.
4. Show that the derivative of e^(-x) F(x) = -e^(-x) f(x).
5. Show that A_j integral( e^(-x) f(x), 0, j) = A_j F(0) - A_j e^(-j) F(j).
6. Multiple that by e^j and then sum over j = 0, 1, ..., m giving sum( A_j e^j integral(e^(-x)f(x), 0, j), j = 0 -> m) = - sum( sum( A_j f^(i)(j), i= 0 -> mp+p-1), j= 0 -> m).
7. Show that f^(i)(j) is an integer for all i, j in that sum, and that each is divisible by p except in the case j = 0, i = p-1.
8. Show that f^(p-1)(0) is not divisible by p if we choose p > m.
9. Show that if we chose p > |A_0| the double sum on the right in #6 consists of multiples of p except for for the term -A_0 f^(p-1)(0), and so must be a non-zero integer.
10. Use the inequality from #3 in the left side in #6 to conclude that |left side| < 1 if p is sufficiently large. That contradicts #9.
It's also that you need to run dual stack (IPv4 and IPv6) and IPv6 has massively shifted how network addressing works - making dual stack deployments exceedingly complex to run in parallel.
I think the text is geared towards people with some mathematical background who want to understand learning theory. Besides it is clearly stated that this chapter is a review (so its assumed that you learned or will learn these things elsewhere).
Well I have some math background but that section is brisk and slow at the same time, as it were. Such as how it explains how to find inverses of 2x2 matrices.
I think what parent meant was that Euler spent a few decades in Russia because of the funding provided by the empire. He spoke fluent Russian, even though there was a large German-speaking community there.
But it was typical for scientists to travel far for money. Some of the Bernoullis, a family famous for mathematicians, also worked in Russian for quite a while.
Does it really matter who payed 'em and what languages they spoke?
I wonder what he would have considered himself - he spent more time in St Petersburg than anywhere else but was born in Basel and spent a good bit of time in Berlin. For what it's worth, the Opera Omnia are published by the Swiss Academy of Sciences.
People are generally associated with where you were born/grew up/attended uni, and unless he claimed to have thrown off all that, I think we can't move the goal posts. So I think the best you can do is "Swish scientist and mathematician while under decades Russian patronage" and not really Russian. I would accept it if he had forsaken his Swiss heritage or something of that sort, but he didn't. Maybe Swiss-Prussian-Russian mathematician?
In all recent US wars civilian casualties vastly outnumber military ones. In the Ukrainian war civilian casualties constitute less than 10% of overall casualties. Outstanding precision for a rusty hatchet.
Most recent US wars have spent most of their time in an asymmetric counterinsurgency phase, the Russo-Ukrainian war is (in style of warfare) basically a symmetric force-on-force international war.
You are being nitpicky about the names while missing the substance. The first battle was the French capture of Saarbrucken. So no, Prussia did not "attacked first".
You are right that behind words like "attack" or "Germany" they are complex human interactions that are hard to understand in retrospect, but I fell obligated to push that discussion a little further: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ems_Dispatch
It's not necessarily that they're bad it's just that they're likely not a valuable source of acquiring information outside of what supports a specific position. Like I wouldn't necessarily trust an oil baron to tell me about how global warming doesn't really exist, or I don't necessarily believe Disney's Iger to tell me about how the writing and acting strikes are entitled whining nonsense.
...and the only legitimate source to ask about climate change is the Sierra Club.
and the only legitimate source to ask about the need for copyrights is Disney.
It always cuts both ways. Just because they're against the position you think is obviously correct doesn't mean that you can dismiss a dissenting position. Every story has another side to it. (Well, except this one :) )
I mean, it applies to everyone. The more interesting question in this context is, which of the two groups does it apply to more?
If I have to put both the average CEO and the average epidemiologist on a spectrum of "more interested in my well-being" to "more interested in my pocketbook", I know where I'd put each one.
For a barber, more haircuts = more money. Trying to imagine what kind of relationship you think epidemiologists have with money? It's not like they get a nickel for every person they save from getting sick.
Not everything is purely about money. People are highly motivated by a sense of power or prominence, by a sense of belonging in the "correct group", and by a sense of being useful or productive at their profession. A barber as much as money will believe their haircut will make you look good.
As a thought exercise, I wonder to which group an epidemiologist would need to belong to have a sense of power? The group that says that there is a dangerous disease or the group that says that it's not particularly dangerous?
PS: For people who wonder, the H factor-style ranking mechanisms for researchers means that your rank is higher (which tends to translate to more interesting work and/or more money) if you're heavily quoted by other researchers.
Of course, the easiest way to be heavily quoted, unless you're already a highly established scientist, is by being contrarian/provocative, so that other people feel like they need to debunk your writings.
I'd think in this case it's about the response. What group of epidemiologists wouldn't get a sense of power, prestige than having daily Whitehouse meetings, continual press coverage, and effectively setting public policy based solely on their subject of expertise? That essentially hits on all three points I gave.
The issue is that they'll fail to appropriately consider the broader long-term effects of lockdowns. Most of the advice and policy also wasn't scientifically based in that the effectiveness wasn't well researched, so H-factor scores wouldn't play much of a role.
> I'd think in this case it's about the response. What group of epidemiologists wouldn't get a sense of power, prestige than having daily Whitehouse meetings, continual press coverage, and effectively setting public policy based solely on their subject of expertise? That essentially hits on all three points I gave.
That is definitely one possibility. The other possibility being that a group of contrarian epidemiologists would get power and prestige by claiming that the first group is biased. This has happened in France, with Raoult growing a cult-like following.
> Most of the advice and policy also wasn't scientifically based in that the effectiveness wasn't well researched, so H-factor scores wouldn't play much of a role.
Well, in that case, H-factor-style scores wouldn't play much of a role because this was not research but policy.
I seem to remember that the effectiveness of lockdowns on diseases has been pretty much proved way before covid. Of course, their effect on economy may not have been studied quite as well :)
No, but understanding the position of the author is useful. There is an agenda behind this article. If my goal is to avoid death during a pandemic, personally I would rather read articles about pandemic response by epidemiologists rather than economists.
Towards an individual those things may be fine, but we each live in a society, and how your actions effect others could be a factor in how much each of them may be exercised.
Certainly not! The fundamental problem is that arguments written from a naive perspective of assuming/asserting we have these things, while we most definitely do not, end up advocating for horribly oppressive policies.
The current government policy is that most everyone should be continually working around 40 hours a week, enforced by a financial treadmill created by continual monetary stimulus. So this noble idea that people could have individually chosen to self isolate or freely associate is fallacious with our current setup. Without "lockdowns" (aka closing businesses), most people would have been forced to keep going into work for business as usual, just as they do for other communicable diseases until the symptoms cannot be ignored.
Centralized control begets more centralized control to address its own failings. Focusing on surface issues while ignoring their underlying causes just makes you end up being a tool for entrenched interests wanting authoritarian policies that benefit them.
Personal freedom can be a bad idea in crisis situations. Selflessness and following procedure can be better for the collective. This is why crisis operators follow checklists rather than giving each individual absolute personal freedom.
and there's the temptation to govern in a permanent crisis mode. there is no end to reasons why there is a crisis. or, is there a scientific definition of "crisis"?
Yes, I agree that there is a temptation for those in power. Legal frameworks can be created to try and limit the lengths and conditions under which a "crisis mode" can be enacted, but there will always be people looking for more power.
If anything COVID demonstrated the opposite - governments were all too eager to get back to BAU despite the situation still being severe, resulting in notably high excess death rates.
Politicians are experts at that surely. But in this case I'm not aware of a case where any epidemiology or other public health policy experts were telling governments lockdowns needed to be ended.
The cynical side of me suggests that there were too many at high levels of government who felt that lockdowns impinged on their ability to enjoy the levels of power they were accustomed to, and so the opinions of those whose job it was to advise on such matters simply got overridden.
Absolutely false. If the government is going to abridge my rights, such as forcing lockdowns or vaccinations, they better show me the necessity and efficacy of those abridgements. The government can't just come in and say, "This is a crisis, we get to do whatever we want." Fuck that. That's how authoritarians are born. Many closet authoritarians took advantage of covid to become dictators without any evidence of efficacy of their mandates.
If I started shilling for the Marxist-Leninist Institute of Vkou that promoted cake for everyone, equality, unity and prosperity, self-determination and social wellbeing, would you be concerned about any of those things separately, together, or would you just dismiss me out of hand, because you think you know where that road leads?
I think I know where the road of 'personal freedom, free enterprise, property rights, limited government, and sound money' leads, and I'm also usually quite happy to dismiss anyone shilling for it out of hand.
Marxist-Leninists often have fair and valid critique of society. Hearing them out is valuable even if you (like myself) find yourself opposed to many of their values and proposals.
Not in an absolute sense: property rights are obviously very important to how society functions. But "the US needs stronger property rights" is in general a harmful position. US limitations on property rights are largely to tax the ultra-rich and to limit exploitation and concentration of wealth. For example, tenants' rights are pretty much directly opposed to the landlord's property rights, and tenants' rights do not (IMHO) need weakening in most places in the US, but instead need strengthening.
The same holds to some extent for the other values, but maybe only in context. (Personal freedom to do what? Not to get an abortion...)
Also, we're talking about a website with a front-page article arguing that reparations for slavery + Jim Crow + other racist discrimination are bad, because slavery is "like winning the lottery" for modern American black people. After all, without the system that kidnapped and enslaved their ancestors and then discriminated against their grandparents and parents and still discriminates against them today -- such that they have less income, less savings, worse life expectancy, triple maternal mortality etc -- they probably would have been born in Africa!
