You can add a piece of belt that reports its contents and have the thing converge even if someone surreptitiously adds/removes stuff from the belt. (Add something that's morally equivalent to `science_x_mem <= (1-eps)*science_x_mem + eps*belt_length/sensor_belt_length*belt_sensor_report)`.)
So it should be .pl.com instead of .com.pl?
opinionated fi
Similarly, is useful to avoid "should".
@noodlejetski @rcz @kuba Ah, ślepym. Dzięki.
Also, did you by any chance look at https://www.swissmedic.ch/swissmedic/de/home/news/coronavirus-covid-19/stand-zl-bekaempfung-covid-19.html, which has a banner on top that says that it's not being updated anymore?
You can get it here. I have an appointment for iirc 30th literally in the Reisemedizinzentrum, if you want an earlier one you can most likely find pharmacies that have earlier slots too (I _think_ they all would be using the new version): https://ihre-apotheke.ch/de/pharmago?text=Covid-19-Impfung
I think it's already approved as a medication (https://www.swissmedicinfo.ch/ViewMonographie) and being used (e.g. https://reisemedizin.uzh.ch/de/covid-19/referenz_impfzentrum)
@jpgoldberg
What does voting "no" on a judge's reelection do?
Would you mind being more verbose on you approach to uncontested elections? (I don't know what is the effect of voting in them in the US.)
@cstross Consider not starring out Trump, because doing so may bypass filters of people who filter out posts with word Trump from their feed.
I don't know what to think about it being stated openly: does this mean an increased assurance in people not finding this extremely abhorrent, or increased assurance in the news not being widely believed, or in that not mattering?
@whitequark Do you know how the max current is estimated? (I wonder how the relationship between heat carried away by convection and wire diameter for a fixed temperature is modelled, and which wire orientation is pessimistic.)
You can avoid learning of drop for quite some time, but I meant something different: when you see a piece of code in isolation then you can't really tell which variables have any nontrivial drop methods (potentially quite deep inside their structures).
Due to the existence of panics, one cannot make this always-explicit: even if one was required to explicitly drop every type with code that runs at drop time (i.e. forbid implicit dropping of those), we'd still have a potential for not realizing that a drop will be called in panic control flow, so requiring that would not solve ~any issues.
NIe wiem czy wiesz o istnieniu Kiwixa (https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.kiwix.kiwixmobile&hl=en) -- przeglądarki do specjalne ściągniętych stron. Dla stron typu wikipedia, stack overflow i wielu innych takie wersje offline są regularnie generowane i znajdowalne na https://library.kiwix.org/#lang=eng i https://farm.openzim.org/recipes.
I don't have any suggestions yet, but want to ask whether you want verification done by a human or by a combination of human and computer. (For example, _currently_ all video recordings produced by the AI would have mains hum mismatched with the time and place where they were supposedly recorded. Alas, one can't detect that by Mk. 1 eyeball.)
The premise of the wargame was that Iran is making its long-range nuclear strike capability more ready for use.
My reading of the outcome is that such acts are more likely to lead to escalation for parties that don't consider it boundary-crossing to launch conventional missiles at each other.
I myself don't think it's very hard, but I can imagine not realising that a given type has a drop function. (And now I realized that my suggestion doesn't actually address control flow when panicking.)
> The point is that it makes a lot more sense to work on solving these corner cases, than to just throw away the entire mechanism and have fallible humans in charge of writing more complex code as a result.
Isn't this a bit of a false dichotomy (like "have gc" and "do memory management manually" used to be the only two possible choices ~before rust)?
In this particular case (invocations of drop), consider types that must be explicitly dropped by some specific means (i.e. ones that you need to pass by value to some specific function, and where letting them go out of scope in your own code is a compile error)? That would be neither relying on compiler inserting invocations of nontrivial code where they aren't explicitly written out (which I think is the issue people have with automatic drop invocation) nor on people never forgetting to drop things. (I personally don't think that would be a better world though; I'd rather see a code viewing overlay that points out where drops happen.)
I enjoy things around information theory (and data compression), complexity theory (and cryptography), read hard scifi, currently work on weird ML (we'll see how it goes), am somewhat literal minded and have approximate knowledge of random things. I like when statements have truth values, and when things can be described simply (which is not exactly the same as shortly) and yet have interesting properties.
I live in the largest city of Switzerland (and yet have cow and sheep pastures and a swimmable lake within a few hundred meters of my place :)). I speak Polish, English, German, and can understand simple Swiss German and French.
If in doubt, please err on the side of being direct with me. I very much appreciate when people tell me that I'm being inaccurate. I think that satisfying people's curiosity is the most important thing I could be doing (and usually enjoy doing it). I am normally terse in my writing and would appreciate requests to verbosify.
I appreciate it if my grammar or style is corrected (in any of the languages I use here).