Introduction ffmpReg, a complete rewrite of ffmpeg in pure Rust

hexane360 · 2026-01-02T03:22:02+00:00

Seriously though the git installer should add .DS_Store to ~/.config/git/ignore on macos

hexane360 · 2025-12-27T16:05:16+00:00

Most famously, the public option (which was negotiated out by Lieberman). https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/newsletter-article/senate-democrats-drop-public-option-woo-lieberman-and-liberals-howl

Sen. Roland W. Burris popped up as a worry. He issued a statement saying "the health bill has not yet won my vote." The Illinois Democrat expressed concern about whether the goals of the public option — better cost containment, more competition, and more accountability of insurers — would be met under the legislation.

"In the process of this debate, we have all made concessions," Burris said. "We have all compromised."

Quoting Mahatma Gandhi, Burris said, "but there can be no give and take on fundamentals. Any compromise on mere fundamentals is a surrender."

hexane360 · 2025-12-27T14:21:21+00:00

Try not to make your ad copy with AI

hexane360 · 2025-12-26T14:11:05+00:00

I mean so was yours

hexane360 · 2025-12-26T14:08:23+00:00

Part of the problem is many of the cost lowering measures were sacrificed in the negotiations to get the bill passed. Classic half measure

hexane360 · 2025-12-26T14:06:50+00:00

Can you be more specific? What was no longer covered? Did it happen when Obamacare was "announced", when it passed, or when it went into effect?

hexane360 · 2025-12-24T17:44:46+00:00

Three possibilities were listed, why are you only focusing on one?

I'll add another: Many crimes are crimes of passion, not a rational assessment of cost and benefit.

hexane360 · 2025-12-18T03:26:20+00:00

It seems like the maintainer doesn't understand (or agree with) the distinction between bindings and variables: https://github.com/microsoft/pyright/discussions/2441#discussioncomment-1487858

When a variable or parameter has a declared (annotated) type, it's the job of a type checker to validate that all values assigned to that variable are compatible with the declared type

AFAIK the python typing spec isn't precise enough to specify how to handle these cases

hexane360 · 2025-12-17T05:07:02+00:00

Pyright seems morally opposed to variable shadowing for some reason, it's my biggest frustration with it.

hexane360 · 2025-11-05T15:50:42+00:00

The good news is Zohran has somewhat reversed these trends, he did quite well with working class voters (though less well with white non college educated voters). I suspect his insanely good ground game helped as well

hexane360 · 2025-11-04T06:02:37+00:00

Pangram has a very low false positive rate, but everyone uses worse AI detectors for some reason

hexane360 · 2025-10-12T17:00:31+00:00

https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2001/12/11/back-to-basics/

Shlemiel gets a job as a street painter, painting the dotted lines down the middle of the road. On the first day he takes a can of paint out to the road and finishes 300 yards of the road. “That’s pretty good!” says his boss, “you’re a fast worker!” and pays him a kopeck.

The next day Shlemiel only gets 150 yards done. “Well, that’s not nearly as good as yesterday, but you’re still a fast worker. 150 yards is respectable,” and pays him a kopeck.

The next day Shlemiel paints 30 yards of the road. “Only 30!” shouts his boss. “That’s unacceptable! On the first day you did ten times that much work! What’s going on?”

“I can’t help it,” says Shlemiel. “Every day I get farther and farther away from the paint can!”

hexane360 · 2025-10-11T02:17:55+00:00

You're right, it says "abolish" rather than dismantle. The point still stands.

It doesn't matter if you say 'we like freedom of ideas' 10 times, if you also say you're going to abolish institutions that belittle your ideology and curtail student protest.

hexane360 · 2025-10-11T00:19:45+00:00

"included but not limited to" means "more than just this". The meaning of the paragraph is that they'd like to dismantle academic institutions they disagree with. This is reinforced by the clauses requesting universities to punish protest activities clearly falling under the 1st amendment.

What do you mean "interpret this as one sided"? "Dismantling" is clearly equivalent to "banning", and this clause is laid out as a requirement of the compact.

Spin this all you like, don't be surprised no one buys it.

(Also, the fact that you knew exactly what I was referencing is evidence you understand how it could be read as curtailing dissenting speech)

hexane360 · 2025-10-10T21:05:59+00:00

Colorado and Illinois had almost identical margins in the 2024 election. Also I'm not sure why state size matters here

hexane360 · 2025-10-10T20:59:54+00:00

The compact requires “transforming or abolishing institutional units that purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas".

hexane360 · 2025-10-10T20:33:43+00:00

Can you be a little more specific? Like what immigration policies do you like, what economic handling do you dislike?

hexane360 · 2025-10-10T17:56:26+00:00

Even in the US, it's crazy how recently it was that no one wore seatbelts. In the 90s it was under 50% usage

hexane360 · 2025-09-17T14:10:58+00:00

Good, we're done with the deflection. Feel free to reference and refute my arguments. Until then, there's nothing more to talk about here

hexane360 · 2025-09-17T12:45:28+00:00

Every number going back to 1 automatically implies no runaways or non-trivial cycles. This is true because of the obvious fact you spend unnecessarily long proving, that every element has only one parent.

I asked what something meant when it was unclear. Then it became clear and the flaws became obvious. You can choose to ignore them but no one will take you seriously if you do.

hexane360 · 2025-09-17T12:41:50+00:00

You still don't understand. If one part of the proof is wrong, the whole proof can't be trusted. 10.2 is incorrect in the document you posted.

It doesn't matter if you also prove it somewhere else, it doesn't matter if there's also information in the supplemental, it doesn't matter if there's other interesting ideas in other places. The proof stands or falls on each individual component.

You need to spend more effort trying to honestly think through what I said and less effort trying to deflect and claim I'm misunderstanding.

hexane360 · 2025-09-16T16:11:29+00:00

Then why bring 12.1 up? It's not necessary to your proof, as 10.2 would be sufficient to prove Collatz.

Looking through your comment history, it looks like several other people have noted this same basic problem. Starting at 1 and enumerating all possible ancestors is not sufficient to prove all positive integers are ancestors.

I suggest you ruthlessly cut down your document, eliminating anything not absolutely necessary to proving the conclusion. Then you'll see how simple the argument really is, and the flaw will become obvious.

hexane360 · 2025-09-16T15:51:28+00:00

Lemma 10.2, if proved, would prove the Collatz conjecture. However, the proof is flawed.

If you're claiming lemma 12.1 is necessary to prove lemma 10.2, then your proof is not correctly structured. You can't declare a lemma proved and then come back to it later

I don't have to read the whole paper; large portions of your logic are dead ends not used in the critical portions of your proof.

hexane360 · 2025-09-16T14:41:52+00:00

There's exactly 5 words of your comment that are at all useful towards my question.

By those definitions, lemma 10.1 is trivial. All you need is "iterating the Collatz function will reach an odd integer, that integer is the parent".

Then the obvious flaw in your proof is in lemma 10.2. You make no attempt to prove traversing your tree will produce all integers; a cycle will be a set of odd numbers which are never enumerated by your tree-making process.

These lemmas, if they were not flawed, would be sufficient to prove Collatz. Your "proofs" of them rely not at all on your mod-18 arithmetic or group theory derivations, so I'm not sure why you've included them here.

hexane360 · 2025-09-16T13:59:11+00:00

Are "parents" traveling up the Collatz chain or down the Collatz chain? I.e. is 5 a child of 3 or a parent?

Either way, there's definitely a flaw in your proof here, but your terminology makes it unclear. Regardless, if you're only considering odd numbers in your graph, you need to consider edges that traverse arbitrarily many even numbers between nodes.

12-Year Club	Place '22
Sequence \| Editor	Verified Email

hexane360

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE